C2 V&V - Manual - V530

CAESAR II 2011 Verification and Validation Manual
Copyright 1985-2010 Intergraph CAS, All Rights Reserved.
These documents are the property of Intergraph Corporation, they may be used for internal reference purposes only and may not be copied, sold or otherwise distributed to any third party.
Printed on 4 January, 2011
Contents
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Introduction Discussion of QA Standards Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures 1-1 2-1 3-1
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Reference Documents ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 Management ............................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Verification Methods ................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Quality Assurance Test Procedure ................................................................................................ 3-5 QATEST........................................................................................................................................ 3-6 Additional Manual Checks for Staff and Beta Users ..................................................................... 3-6 Implementing QATEST ............................................................................................................................ 3-7 Installing the QA Files................................................................................................................... 3-7 User Documentation ................................................................................................................................. 3-8 Corrective Action Standard....................................................................................................................... 3-9 Distribution Control ................................................................................................................................ 3-10
Chapter 4
NRC Benchmarks
4-1
NRC General Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................ 4-2 NRC Spectrum Benchmarks ................................................................................................................... 4-11
Chapter 5 Chapter 6
ASME Benchmarks General Benchmarks
5-1 6-1
ANSYS Benchmark .................................................................................................................................. 6-2 ADLPIPE Benchmark............................................................................................................................... 6-6 AUTOPIPE Benchmark ............................................................................................................................ 6-8 DYNAFLEX Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................... 6-13 TRIFLEX Benchmark............................................................................................................................. 6-23 UBEND Benchmark ............................................................................................................................... 6-25 SIMFLEX Benchmarks .......................................................................................................................... 6-28 PIPESTRESS Benchmarks ..................................................................................................................... 6-38 E400 Benchmark .................................................................................................................................... 6-43 CAEPIPE Benchmarks ........................................................................................................................... 6-48 L- Bend Benchmark ................................................................................................................................ 6-58
Chapter 7
Stoomwezen Benchmarks
7-1
Test Case I ................................................................................................................................................ 7-2

Introduction Test Case II ............................................................................................................................................... 7-9 Test Case III ............................................................................................................................................ 7-18 Bend With Concentrated Loads .............................................................................................................. 7-25 Bend With Uniform Loads ..................................................................................................................... 7-33
Chapter 8
Structural Benchmarks
8-1
ANSYS Truss Job ..................................................................................................................................... 8-2 3D Beams & Columns .............................................................................................................................. 8-4 Portal Frame.............................................................................................................................................. 8-6 Truss Analysis # 1 .................................................................................................................................... 8-7 Truss Analysis #2 ..................................................................................................................................... 8-9 Loaded Beam .......................................................................................................................................... 8-10 Plane Frame ............................................................................................................................................ 8-11 Simple Plane Frame ................................................................................................................................ 8-12 Space Frame............................................................................................................................................ 8-13 Simple Truss Plane ................................................................................................................................. 8-15 Plane Truss.............................................................................................................................................. 8-17
Chapter 9
User Quality Assurance Procedures
9-1
Installing the QA Series ............................................................................................................................ 9-2 Preparing to Perform the QA .................................................................................................................... 9-3 Performing the QA.................................................................................................................................... 9-4 Configuration Settings Table .................................................................................................................... 9-7
Chapter 10
Appendix A
10-1
CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form ................................................................................. 10-2
CH AP TER
Chapter 1 Introduction
The CAESAR II Verification and Validation Manual is intended to provide users with a standard set of CAESAR II jobs for use in verifying both the operation of the program and the accuracy of the results. The verification jobs presented in this manual represent a small subset of the jobs run by Intergraph CAS for the verification of each release of the CAESAR II package. The jobs selected for this manual have been obtained from either industry publications or are comparisons to other software programs. This manual consists of two major sections: the Quality Assurance Procedures section, and the Job Verification section. The Quality Assurance section consists of Chapters 2 and 3, and describes the QA procedures employed by Intergraph CAS to insure that CAESAR II is producing correct results. References to accepted Quality Assurance documents are given where applicable. The Job Verification section consists of Chapters 4 through 8, and presents a series of benchmark jobs. These jobs compare CAESAR II output to either published results or output from other similar programs. For each job in this section, a brief description of the job and any special considerations are discussed. Following the discussion is a graphical representation of the system with selected result comparisons. (Due to the volume of output, random node points are listed in tables comparing displacements, reactions, forces, and stresses. Users interested in the entire output can re-analyze the jobs as necessary.) Chapter 9 discusses the accompanying CD and how to use its contents. Appendix A contains the CAESAR II Beta Evaluation Form. When additional benchmark jobs are obtained, they will be added to this Manual. As new Quality Assurance procedures are published they will be incorporated into the QA methods employed by Intergraph CAS. Users with questions, comments, or suggestions are encouraged to contact Intergraph CAS to discuss future revisions to this document. This manual and its contents should be considered proprietary. This material should not be copied or distributed to other parties without the expressed consent of Intergraph CAS.
CH AP TER
Chapter 2 Discussion of QA Standards

Software Quality Assurance is a rather abstract idea, since no matter how much testing is performed; the next test may reveal an error in the software. Therefore, the attempt of any QA procedure is to perform enough testing to achieve a level of confidence in the software, such that errors are rare and unlikely. Toward this goal, several organizations have published guidelines for use in the Quality Assurance of software. The publications which have been reviewed on this subject are: 10 CFR-50, Appendix B: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10 CFR-21; Nuclear Regulatory Commission IEEE 370: ANSI. AQAP 13: NATO. Software Quality Control System Requirements. DOD STD 2167: Defense System Software Development. ASQC Q90-Q94: ANSI ISO 9000-3: International Organization for Standardization, Part 3: Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001 to the development, supply and maintenance of software. NQA-2A: ASME Quality Assurance Requirements of Computer Software for Nuclear Facility Applications. NQA-1: ASME Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics, ASME V & V. The procedures described in Chapter 3 of this manual conform closest to the IEEE 370 guidelines (although some items from some of the other standards are also implemented). The IEEE document describes procedures which should be implemented to insure that a Quality Assurance Plan exists and is implemented by the developer. 10 CFR-50 does not explicitly discuss software, it emphasizes documentation of procedures, notification of management if problems are uncovered, and record keeping. 10 CFR-21 discusses the reporting of defects and noncompliance. However, like 10 CFR-50, this document also does not directly address software. The Department of Defense Standard 2167 is a military standard for the development and maintenance of software programs. This is the only standard reviewed which offers suggested coding guidelines. AQAP 13 is also a specification for the development and maintenance of software programs. Additionally, the management issues of software development are discussed. The ANSI ASQC Q90-Q94 guidelines are technically equivalent to the ISO 9000-9004 series. These guidelines discuss quality assurance concepts, management, policies and implementation. The ISO 9000-3 specification is a complete guide to the development and maintenance of software products. Various sections discuss the design stage, the testing stage, the supply stage, and the maintenance stage. Many of the topics of this document are also discussed in IEEE 370 and DOD STD 2167.
2-2
Discussion of QA Standards
The NQA-2A requirements discuss the various stages of the software life cycle and the controls and verifications needed at each stage. This document also discusses reporting procedures for software errors. NQA-1 is a broad document that discusses all aspects and activities that could affect the quality of nuclear facilities, systems, and components. The use of software and the testing of software are also discussed here. The ASME V&V standard is a broad document discussing the concepts of software verification and testing, errors, and testing procedures.
CH AP TER
Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

This section describes the methods through which Intergraph CAS performs the Quality Assurance testing on the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis software. Each subsequent section herein has a specific purpose and should be reviewed carefully.
In This Chapter
Purpose .................................................................................. 3-2 Reference Documents ........................................................... 3-3 Management .......................................................................... 3-4 Verification Methods ............................................................ 3-5 Implementing QATEST ........................................................ 3-7 User Documentation ............................................................. 3-8 Corrective Action Standard ................................................... 3-9 Distribution Control .............................................................. 3-10
3-2
Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures
Purpose
The official name of the software is CAESAR II. The intended use of CAESAR II is for the design/analysis of piping systems that are subject to various loading conditions. These loading conditions are typically the result of the physical location of the system and the request of the owner/analyst. One may note that these loadings may be static or dynamic in nature. The typical use of CAESAR II is to analyze piping systems in accordance with a nationally or internationally recognized piping code. In these piping codes, formulations exist for determining the state of stress on an element due to the incurred loads. With the geometry and physical properties of the system known CAESAR II, using standard finite element techniques, will determine system displacements, forces and moments, and finally stresses. The determination of that information is the primary purpose for the use of the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis software.
3-3
Reference Documents
The documents referenced as part of the Quality Assurance are the following. The documents and standards discussed in Chapter 2 of this Manual. Babich, Wayne A., Software Configuration Management, Addison-Wesley, 1986. Cooper, John D., Software Quality Management, Petrocelli Press Dunn, Robert, Software Defect Removal, McGraw Hill, 1984 Kaner, Falk, and Nguyen, Testing Computer Software, John Wiley & Sons, 1999. Dustin, Elfriede, Effective Software Testing, Addison-Wesley, 2003.
3-4
Management
Intergraph CAS (dba COADE Engineering Software) is wholly responsible for all software made available to the public that bears the Intergraph CAS label on the distribution media (CDs and DVDs). Leading Intergraph CAS is the developer/head software engineer in charge of the CAESAR II Pipe Stress Analysis source code. Any changes made to the software are done with his consent. Additional members of the software group are all engineers or qualified software developers, who interact at the same level (i.e. there are no communication problems between the development personnel). Thus all software problems can easily be brought to the attention of the lead developer with minimal waiting and difficulty. In addition, all members of the development staff may find themselves supporting or helping customers who have difficulty installing/interpreting, etc. the CAESAR II software package. All members of the software development team are also called upon to help test/QA the software before each release. In review, each engineer and/or developer will be called upon to verify that CAESAR II is operating and performing correctly at release time, to the best of his ability.
3-5
Verification Methods
Quality Assurance Test Procedure
Currently in the United States there is no organization which formally establishes (or does not establish) the credibility of pipe stress analysis software. Therefore this burden lies on the shoulder of the supplier of the software. Generally, there are two different ways to establish that any software program is performing correctly. They are:
1 Comparing program results to hand calculations. 2 Comparing results to previously verified results from an outside source.
If 1 and 2 above compare favorably to program generated results, we may say that the software is performing as expected. If it is not, the difference must be identified and the problem corrected. Before a new version of CAESAR II is released, alpha level testing is done by the development personnel. This entails a check of the source code and the running of basic test problems designed to test the functionality of the feature addition, error and abort conditions, etc. Next the development staff generates a series of tests (alpha tests) with the following objectives:
Test new features against existing software. Tests have been run against industry standard programs such as Dynaflex, Triflex, ADLpipe, Mec21, SAP IV, Pipeline, and UCCpipe. In addition a number of companies have independently compared the results of CAESAR II against their own in house program. Test new features against hand calculations. Test new features against published literature, i.e. the NRC dynamics benchmarks: NUREG51267, Vol. I and II, ASME benchmarks, and Stoomwezen benchmarks. Test the interaction between new features and features already existing in the software. Test the new (development) version against existing output from prior versions of the software. Any new test developed to verify a new feature of the software is added to the QA series of test jobs. In this manner the suite of test jobs continually grows. Each subsequent version of the software is therefore subjected to more tests than prior versions.
B C D E F
After all of these tests are run, with satisfactory results, the new version is made available to selected clients as a beta test version. If any program errors are discovered and corrected at any time during the testing, all test jobs are rerun.
3-6
QATEST
Results from the new version of the software are compared to previously verified results using an Intergraph CAS developed program - QATEST. This program compares each piece of numerical output between two files and records the discrepancies. The output from this program can be directed to the screen, file or to the printer. The hardcopy results can then be saved as proof that each output file was checked. By checking new version results to previously verified results, program errors can quickly be spotted and remedied or justified (in the case of Piping Code changes). To summarize, by thoroughly checking program results by hand, to other software and with benchmark problems, high product quality can be achieved and maintained. The QATEST procedure (for testing new versions of CAESAR II) is discussed in Chapter 9. Also included is a sample test log sheet. Similar log sheets are filled out for all of the test jobs compared using QATEST. QATEST is made available to customers (with a small subset of the verification jobs), with this Validation and Verification Manual, for those who want to perform their own local verification of the software.
Additional Manual Checks for Staff and Beta Users

Once the new (test) version of the software is distributed to beta users, a number of suggested verifications should be performed. The list of these suggested checks (test) can be found in Appendix A - The Beta Evaluation Form. Note that this list of suggested checks is sent to the beta users to aid in their testing and to record their activities. At the end of the beta test period, the beta users are requested to return these forms to Intergraph CAS. All forms received are archived as part of the verification for each release of the software.
3-7
Implementing QATEST
As previously stated, QATEST is a comparison tool used to verify new CAESAR II output to previously generated CAESAR II output. Accompanying this Validation and Verification Manual is a CD that contains QATEST, as well as a number of directories containing a subset of the QA job suite.
Installing the QA Files

Inserting the CD should invoke the Installation Routine. Follow the prompts to install all of the files on the CD. It is highly recommended that the default installation directory be changed to an easily accessible working folder, preferably a top level directory. Once the installation completes, the following directory structure will exist in the specified target directory: > CAESARII_QA > EXE > ASME > General > NRC > Stoomwzn > Struct Contains the QATEST program, and EXE file. Contains the ASME benchmark jobs Contains a number of general benchmark jobs Contains the NRC (dynamic only) benchmark jobs Contains the Stoomwezen benchmark jobs Contains a number of structural benchmark jobs
Note: Details on running these test jobs and using the QATEST utility can be found in Chapter 9 of this Validation and Verification Manual.
3-8
User Documentation
The CAESAR II user is provided with online access to documentation spanning all facets of the software, including all of the ancillary processors and interfaces. The standard CAESAR II documentation consists of the following documents.
A Users Guide An Applications Guide A Technical Reference Manual A Quick Reference Guide
All of these documents can be accessed on-line, from the Help menu of the main CAESAR II module. Contact information is contained throughout these documents, as well as displayed in the help system, and in a variety of other locations in the software. Anytime users experience problems or confusion with the software they are encouraged to contact us for resolutions and suggestions.
3-9
Corrective Action Standard

As mentioned above, the CAESAR II user has many channels through which he or she can reach the Intergraph CAS development staff. When a problem or error occurs, the engineering staff will attempt to verify the problem or error. The appropriate software developer will be assigned to correct the problem. Once corrected, the change will be verified. Depending on the nature of the problem and the solution, additional QA jobs may be run to verify the integrity of CAESAR II. The corrected program module will then be sent to the user who discovered the problem. If the problem affects the numerical results of the program, all non-distributed changes since the last release are assembled in to a build or patch. This build is verified, and then posted at www.coade.com for download. Registered users are notified by e-mail that a new build is available. If the problem does not affect the numerical results it is saved for distribution in the next build. Following a build the master DVD is regenerated to ensure that Intergraph CAS ships the most current software. As one can infer from reading the preceding sections the CAESAR II pipe stress analysis program is heavily tested before the entire client base is allowed to use a new version. With this in mind, we may say that CAESAR II will perform as required/specified by Intergraph CAS. Also note that user comments for new features are always welcome. In short, by working with the user, the CAESAR II development staff will continue to develop a product which meets the needs of all persons involved in the pipe stress analysis field.
3-10
Distribution Control
After the QA procedure is completely finished, a production copy of CAESAR II will be made off of the lead developers computer. The installation program will be modified to load any new executables which may be released with a new version. CAESAR II will then be loaded onto several PCs. This step is performed to check the installation of the program and the CD/DVD integrity. The master CD/DVD will then be copied onto the CD/DVD Burner for duplication. After the duplicated CD/DVDs are generated, a sample CD/DVD Is loaded is onto each of the PCs in the Engineering and Development groups. Periodic testing of the software is performed as necessary.
CH AP TER
Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks In This Chapter

NRC General Benchmarks .................................................... 4-2 NRC Spectrum Benchmarks ................................................. 4-11
4-2
NRC Benchmarks
NRC General Benchmarks

The following sheets describe both static and dynamic NRC Benchmarks. This series of jobs can be found in bulletin NUREG-21241-R2, published in 1977. The five jobs in this series of benchmarks are briefly described below: 1. The static response of a Hovgaard Bend. 2. The dynamic response of a Hovgaard Bend. 3. The dynamic response of a coffee table structure. 4. A static analysis of Spences pipe work problem. 5. The dynamic response of a low frequency coffee table. Any special settings of the CAESAR II configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job.
CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG1

This job is the static response of a Hovgaard bend. The programs being compared are CAESAR II, EPIPE, PIPDYN and the Analytical method. This job is Problem #1 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.
1) Displacements (in) at Node 5.

DX DY DZ RX RY RZ
EPIPE CAESAR II
.0611 .0607
.07641 .0760
-.24912 -.2472
.1710 .1713
-.1283 -.1275
-.2389 -.2375
2) Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb) at Node 1.

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
EPIPE Analytic Pipdyn CAESAR II
-1711 -1750 -1737.2 -1700
-1666.9 -1710.0 -1686.2 -1658
-628.2 -640.0 -636.7 -625.
-4573 -4670 -4635 -4548
1194.66 1200.00 1207.9 1187.
10847.1 11090.0 11025.3 10777.0
3) Longitudinal Stresses (psi) at Node 1.

EPIPE Analytical CAESAR II 15212 15548 15425
Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks
4-3

This job is the dynamic response of a Hovgaard bend. The programs being compared are CAESAR II and EPIPE. This job is Problem #1 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.
Natural Frequencies (hz)

MODE CAESAR II EPIPE
1 2 3 4
28.539 55.848 141.958 162.994
28.53 55.77 141.7 162.8
SRSS of the Modal Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

Node FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II
1 1 11
11 11.66 29
2 1.567 2
18 18.28 13
129 130 28
26 26 134
67 68 4
4-4
NRC Benchmarks
Node
FX
FY
FZ
MX
MY
MZ
EPIPE
11
29.4
2.79
13.1
28.4
134.6
4.42
Longitudinal Stress Components ( Bending + Axial ) (psi)

ELEMENT NUMBER CAESAR II EPIPE
1 2 6 9 10
193 69 39 79 124
193.8 69.9 40.9 79.9 124.8
4-5

This job is the dynamic response of a coffee table. This job compares CAESAR II to ANSYS. This job is Problem #3 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

MODE ANSYS CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5
111.5 115.9 137.6 218.0 404.2
111.3 115.8 137.2 215.9 404.55
Response Spectrum Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS
15 15 10 10
9 9.4 8 8.5
4 4.7 4 4.7
0 .002 0 .002
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
8 8.58 5 5.4
Longitudinal Stresses ( Bending + Longitudinal ) (psi)

ELEMENT NUMBER CAESAR II ANSYS
1 2 11 12
187 19.8 119.0 187.0
188.19 19 120.2 188.19
4-6
NRC Benchmarks
4-7

This job is the static analysis of Spences Pipe Work Problem #4 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2. The programs being compared are CAESAR II, EPIPE, and the Analytical method .
Nodal Translations (in) and Rotations (deg)

NODE DX DY DZ RX RY RZ
CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE
2 2 5 5 8 8 12 12 15 15 18 18
-.5507 -.5583 -1.9740 -2.0012 -3.1101 -3.1300 -5.2570 -5.2599 -5.6300 -5.6364 -6.0866 -6.0825
-.1522 -.1537 -1.1992 -1.1940 -4.7568 -4.7645 -4.5292 -4.5554 -3.2926 -3.2988 -1.9598 -1.9598
-.0004 -.0004 .4571 .4536 .6487 .6537 .3257 .3186 -.1543 -.1556 -2.3866 -2.3845
.1761 .1777 .2370 .2385 .0621 .0634 -.0973 -.0993 -.1504 -.1513 -.2022 -.2026
-.6022 -.6101 -.4265 -.4360 .0142 .0226 -.4262 -.4296 .4557 .4571 .3352 .3379
-.2834 -.2851 -.6997 -.7017 -.2059 -.2205 .6138 .6260 .2116 .2148 .5452 .5462
Element Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

NODE AXIAL FORCE SHEAR FORCE BENDING MOMENT TORSION MOMENT
CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II
2 2 5 5 8 8 12 12 19
-9947. -10066. -39414. -39962. -39414. -39962. -9947. -10066. -7026.
40036. 39962. 12178 10066. 12178 10066. 40036. 39962. 40650.
195504. 197877. 211119. 215146. 392744. 393410. 68457. 68461. 441272.
-119564. -120304. -3535. -3955. -84105. -84494. -122801. -125080. -104315.
4-8
NRC Benchmarks
NODE
AXIAL FORCE
SHEAR FORCE
BENDING MOMENT
TORSION MOMENT
EPIPE
19
-7121.
39962
444586.
-105187.
Bending Stresses (psi)

NODES BEND STRESSING
CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE
2 2 6 6 8 8 12 12
13221 13258 2970 2628 26558 26116 4629 4506
4-9

This job is the dynamic response of a low frequency coffee table. This job compares CAESAR II to EPIPE. This job is Problem #5 from BNL-NUREG-21241-R2, informal report.

MODE CAESAR II EPIPE
1 2 3 4 5
8.712 8.807 17.515 40.372 41.633
8.712 8.805 17.51 40.37 41.63
Element Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

Element FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
1 1 5 5 7 7
CAESAR II 109 ASME 109.3
297 297.4 297 297.3 297 297.4
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
435 435.7 337 337.4 435 435.7
Longitudinal Stresses ( bending + axial ) (psi)

Element CAESAR II EPIPE
1 13
9600 7232
9603 7233.8
4-10
NRC Benchmarks
4-11
NRC Spectrum Benchmarks

The following sheets describe the NRC Dynamic Benchmarks. This series of jobs can be found in bulletins NUREG-51267 Volumes I and II, published in 1980 and 1985 respectively. These jobs consist entirely of dynamic spectrum runs, for uniform and independent support motion analysis. The introduction to each bulletin describes the jobs, the loading conditions, and the analysis techniques to be applied - and will therefore not be repeated here. These jobs were initially analyzed using CAESAR II Version 2.0A, which was compiled using the Microsoft Ver 3.2 FORTRAN compiler. Since that time, the 16 bit versions of the dynamics modules have been recompiled using the Microsoft Ver 5.1 FORTRAN compiler. The 32 bit versions of the dynamics modules have been compiled using the WATCOM Ver 9.0 FORTRAN compiler. Users re-analyzing these jobs from the accompanying CD may notice some variation in the CAESAR II numbers compared to those presented here (in the third or fourth decimal place) due to the differences in precision of these compilers. Users should also note that these jobs require that the CAESAR II configuration directive BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE be set to YES.
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 1 CAESAR II JOB: NUREG1 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5
28.53 55.77 81.50 141.7 162.8
28.538 55.779 81.509 141.758 162.838
4-12
NRC Benchmarks
TRANSLATIONS (in)
DX Node NRC CAESAR II NRC DY CAESAR II NRC DZ CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.0 .0020 .0059 .0074 .0078 .0078 .0078 .0058 .0022 .0006 .0
.0 .0020 .0059 .0074 .0078 .0078 .0078 .0058 .0022 .0006 .0
.0 .0 .0 .0006 .0016 0021 0025 0020 .0007 .0002 .0
.0 .0 .0 .0006 .0016 .0021 0025 0020 .0007 .0002 .0
.0 .0049 .0146 .0174 .0143 .0106 .0068 .0017 .0 .0 .0
.0 .0049 .0146 .0174 .0143 .0106 .0068 .0017 .0 .0 .0
ROTATIONS (deg)
RX Node NRC CAESAR II NRC RY CAESAR II NRC RZ CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
.0 .0088 .0105 .0083 .0065 .0058 .0051 .0040 .0019 .0010
.0 .0088 .0105 .0083 .0065 .0058 .0051 .0040 .0019 .0010
.0 .0032 .0064 .0087 .0116 .0129 .0122 .0103 .0055 .0032
.0 .0032 .0064 .0087 .0116 .0121 .0122 .0103 .0055 .0032
.0 .0036 .0040 .0029 .0017 .0014 .0011 .0005 .0004 .0002
.0 .0036 .0040 .0029 .0017 .0014 .0011 .0005 .0004 .0002
4-13
RX
RY
RZ
11
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

FX Node NRC CAESAR II NRC FY CAESAR II NRC FZ CAESAR II
1 11
17.9 34.8
17. 34.
4.96 7.5
4. 7.
36.4 24.0
36. 24.
SUPPORT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX Node NRC CAESAR II NRC MY CAESAR II NRC MZ CAESAR II
1 11
268.9 64.5
268. 64.
52.5 206.4
52. 206.
116.2 9.4
116. 9.
4-14
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG2 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5
8.712 8.806 17.51 40.37 41.63
8.713 8.807 17.510 40.371 41.631
TRANSLATIONS (in)
1 2 3 4 5 7 10 11
.2303 .2303 .2303 .2303 .4618 .4618 .4618 .4618
.2302 .2302 .2302 .2302 .4617 .4617 .4617 .4617
.0013 .0013 .0013 .0013 .0025 .0025 .0025 .0025
.0013 .0013 .0013 .0013 .0025 .0025 .0025 .0025
.2251 .2251 .2251 .2251 .4462 .4462 .4462 .4462
.2250 .2250 .2250 .2250 .4460 .4460 .4460 .4460
4-15
ROTATIONS (deg)
1 2 3 4 5 7 10 12
.3747 .3747 .3747 .3747 .0507 .0507 .0507 .0507
.3744 .3744 .3744 .3744 .0507 .0507 .0507 .0507
.0004 .0004 .0004 .0004 .0008 .0008 .0008 .0008
.0004 .0004 .0004 .0004 .0008 .0008 .0008 .0008
.3851 .3851 .3851 .3851 .0638 .0638 .0638 .0638
.3850 .3850 .3850 .3850 .0638 .0638 .0638 .0638
4-16
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG2 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
15 16 17 18
109.3 109.3 109.3 109.3
109 109 109 109
766.4 766.4 766.4 766.4
766 766 766 766
108.2 108.2 108.2 108.2
108 108 108 108

15 16 17 18
427.9 427.9 427.9 427.9
427 427 427 427
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
.0 .0 .0 .0
435.7 435.7 435.7 435.7
435. 435. 435. 435.
4-17
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980. NRC PROBLEM 2B TRANSLATIONS (in)

CAESAR II JOB NUREG2
1 5
.2303 .4618
.2302 .4617
.0009 .0018
.0009 .0018
.2251 .4462
.2250 .4460
ROTATIONS (deg)
1 5
.3747 .0507
.3744 .0507
.0003 .0006
.0003 .0006
.3851 .0638
.3850 .0638
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

16 17
109.3 109.3
109. 109.
555.2 555.4
555. 555.
108.2 108.2
108. 108.

16 17
427.9 427.9
427. 427.
.1 .1
.0 .0
435.8 435.8
435. 435.
4-18
NRC Benchmarks
4-19
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. 1 1980 NUREG PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
6.133 6.188 6.557 6.571 6.632 6.636 6.722 7.984 10.21 11.73 13.40 13.89 14.25 14.50 14.71 15.57 17.10 18.90 28.29 28.31 29.52 29.80 30.32 30.49
6.134 6.184 6.559 6.572 6.633 6.637 6.723 7.985 10.215 11.735 13.401 13.896 14.249 14.498 14.710 15.581 17.098 18.914 28.288 28.312 29.526 29.799 30.318 30.492
4-20
NRC Benchmarks
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
25 26 27 28 29 30
30.50 31.83 31.86 39.50 40.42 40.73
30.500 31.832 31.855 39.504 40.420 40.736
4-21
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4A TRANSLATIONS (in)

2 14 15 16 25 26 36 37 47 61 62 82 83 84 96
.2095 .1094 .1196 .1094 .2388 .2388 .1453 .1453 .1355 .1453 .1453 .1094 .1196 .1094 .2095
.2096 .1091 .1196 .1094 .2382 .2381 .1452 .1450 .1355 .1452 .1453 .1094 .1196 .1091 .2096
.0752 .0780 .0557 .0780 .0229 .0229 .0319 .0319 .0081 .0319 .0319 .0780 .0557 .0780 .0752
.0752 .0781 .0557 .0779 .0230 .0230 .0318 .0318 .0081 .0318 .0318 .0781 .0558 .0780 .0753
.4380 .1743 .0891 .1743 .5732 .5732 .1229 .1229 .1120 .1229 .1229 .1743 .0891 .1743 .4380
.4386 .1748 .0894 .1740 .5719 .5715 .1228 .1228 .1121 .1228 .1231 .1743 .0892 .1739 .4378
4-22
NRC Benchmarks
ROTATIONS (deg)
2 14 15 16 25 26 36 37 47 61 62 82 83 84 96
.0980 .0603 .0182 .0603 .2785 .2785 .0585 .0585 .0097 .0585 .0585 .0603 .0182 .0603 .0980
.0981 .0602 .0182 .0604 .2773 .2777 .0582 .0583 .0097 .0584 .0586 .0603 .0182 .0604 .0979
.0393 .0452 .0539 .0452 .1067 .1067 .1548 .1548 .0 .1548 .1548 .0452 .0539 .0452 .0393
.0393 .0451 .0540 .0451 .1063 .1065 .1541 .1543 .0001 .1542 .1552 .0451 .0539 .0452 .0393
.0502 .0419 .0186 .0419 .1172 .1172 .0343 .0343 .0023 .0343 .0343 .0419 .0186 .0419 .0502
.0502 .0419 .0186 .0419 .1170 .1170 .0343 .0343 .0023 .0342 .0343 .0418 .0186 .0418 .0502
4-23
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NUREG4 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
4 38 39 40 58 59 60 90
2.416E6 8.704E5 0. 8.704E5 8.704E5 0. 8.704E5 2.416E6
2.416E6 8.71145 0. 8.698E5 8.705E5 0. 8.711E5 2.415E6
0. 7.711E5 3.595E5 7.711E5 7.711E5 3.595E5 7.711E5 0.
0. 7.695E5 3.595E5 7.697E5 7.695E5 3.595E5 7.692E5 0.
1.877E6 8.704E5 1.067E6 8.704E5 8.704E5 1.067E6 8.704E5 1.877E6
1.879E6 8.709E5 1.068E6 8.696E5 8.703E5 1.068E6 8.709E5 1.876E6
4-24
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4b TRANSLATIONS (in)

2 14 15 16 25 26 36 37 47
.2095 .0917 .1196 .0917 .1958 .1958 .1392 .1392 .1355
.2092 .0916 .1195

.0918 .1960
.0752 .0739 .0557 .0739 .0189 .0189 .0291 .0291 .0081
.0751 .0739 .0557 .0738 .0189 .0189 .0290 .0290 .0081
.4380 .1675 .0891 .1675 .4364 .4364 .1142 .1142 .1120
.4377 .1677 .0892 .1676 .4369 .4376 .1143 .1143 .1121
.1959 .1392 .1391 .1354
ROTATIONS (deg)
2 14 15 16 25 26 36 37 47
.0980 .0486 .0182 .0486 .2147 .2147 .0463 .0463 .0097
.0979 .0487 .0182 .0488 .2148 .2152 .0462 .0463 .0097
.0393 .0402 .0539 .0402 .0805 .0805 .1184 .1184 .0
.0392 .0402 .0539 .0402 .0807 .0808 .1185 .1187 .0
.0502 .0388 .0186 .0388 .1006 .1006 .0307 .0307 .0023
.0501 .0388 .0186 .0389 .1006 .1006 .0307 .0307 .0023
4-25
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 4B SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
4 38 39 40 58 59 60 90
2.416E6 8.301E5 0. 8.301E5 8.301E5 0. 8.301E5 2.414E6
2.415E6 8.307E5 0. 8.299E5 8.305E5 0. 8.306E5 2.414E6
0. 7.312E5 3.594E5 7.312E5 7.312E5 3.584E5 7.312E5 0.
0. 7.296E5 3.593E5 7.299E5 7.297E5 3.594E5 7.293E5 0.
1.877E6 8.301E5 1.067E6 8.301E5 8.301E5 1.067E6 8.301E5 1.877E6
1.876E6 8.304E5 1.068E6 8.302E5 8.302E5 1.068E6 8.304E5 1.874E6
4-26
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 5 CAESAR II JOB NUREG5 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.036 4.257 9.116 11.19 17.11 18.17 22.38 27.19 28.01
4.036 4.258 9.121 11.190 17.128 18.195 22.418 27.407 28.051
4-27
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
10 11
37.98 40.97
38.089 41.124
4-28
NRC Benchmarks
TRANSLATIONS (in)
2 4 5 6 9 11 15 20 24 29 30 31
.0002 .0003 .0172 .0762 .0822 .0813 .0488 .0015 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0015
.0002 .0003 .0172 .0763 .0822 .0813 .0488 .0014 .0018 .0018 .0018 .0015
.0002 .0005 .0023 .0005 .0305 .0487 .0315 .0043 .0037 .0018 .0018 .0015
.0002 .0005 .0023 .0005 .0305 .0487 .0315 .0043 .0037 .0018 .0018 .0015
.0009 .0024 .0146 .0146 .0459 .0448 .0280 .0056 .0063 .0028 .0022 .0015
.0009 .0024 .0146 .0146 .0459 .0448 .0281 .0056 .0063 .0028 .0022 .0015
4-29
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 5 ROTATIONS (deg)

2 4 5 6 9 11 15 20 24 29 30 31
.0003 .0003 .0011 .0032 .0233 .0237 .0246 .0134 .0076 .0054 .0048 .0040
.0003 .0003 .0011 .0032 .0234 .0238 .0246 .0135 .0076 .0054 .0048 .0040
.0047 .0141 .0603 .0629 .0135 .0059 .0310 .0225 .0027 .0033 .0032 .0029
.0047 .0141 .0603 0630 .0135 .0059 .0310 .0225 .0027 .0033 .0032 .0029
.0009 .0026 .0062 .0079 .0109 .0087 .0038 .0056 .0028 .0025 .0024 .0022
.0009 .0026 .0062 .0079 .0109 .0087 .0038 .0056 .0028 .0025 .0024 .0022
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

7 13 18 25 31
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
34.3 27.0 298.9 0. .9
34. 27.0 299. 0. 0.
0. 0. 501.9 4.6 0.
0. 0. 500. 4 0.
4-30
NRC Benchmarks
4-31
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6a CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
6.391 9.993 13.27 14.49 15.33 17.50 19.09 19.62 21.44 28.71 29.86 31.48 32.01 36.37 40.98 41.37 47.39 49.77 50.13 52.93 56.90 58.51 67.47 70.46
6.397 10.001 13.273 14.484 15.327 17.500 19.093 19.641 21.439 28.726 29.864 31.488 32.010 36.420 41.079 41.369 47.406 49.786 50.145 52.941 56.943 58.545 67.480 70.460
4-32
NRC Benchmarks
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
75.41 79.18 80.74 86.11 88.28 92.74 99.36
75.418 79.198 80.742 86.114 88.349 92.739 99.389
4-33
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6A TRANSLATIONS (in)

3 6 9 12 18 24 30 36 39
.0035 .0117 .0047 .0055 .0065 .0064 .0223 .0081 .0057
.0035 .0116 .0047 .0055 .0065 .0064 .0223 .0080 .0056
.0025 .0026 .0027 .0039 .0068 .0040 .0020 .0689 .0109
.0025 .0026 .0027 .0039 .0068 .0040 .0020 .0684 .0108
.0032 .0122 .0046 .0052 .0086 .0044 .0042 .0151 .0053
.0032 .0122 .0046 .0052 .0086 .0044 .0042 .0151 .0053
ROTATIONS (deg)
3 6 9 12 18 24 30 36 39
.0042 .0006 .0039 .0028 .0035 .0012 .0075 .0138 .0108
.0042 .0006 .0039 .0028 .0035 .0012 .0075 .0136 .0107
.0036 .0033 .0036 .0033 .0025 .0018 .0025 .0031 .0046
.0036 .0033 .0036 .0033 .0025 .0018 .0025 .0031 .0046
.0035 .0003 .0037 .0040 .0015 .0016 .0038 .0159 .0175
.0035 .0004 .0037 .0040 .0015 .0016 .0037 .0158 .0173
4-34
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6A CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 10 20 26 30 34 41
1265. 2825. 1333. 2466. 0. 385. 1991.
1269. 2826. 1332. 2462. 0. 384. 1986.
2398. 0. 1790. 2764. 4084. 0. 1750.
2397. 0. 1791. 2756. 4063. 0. 1741.
1171. 1673. 1389. 1886. 0. 1439. 946.8
1170. 1669. 1388. 1883. 0. 1438. 944.

1 10 20 26 30 34 41
7645.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11066.7
7640. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11026.
4005.8 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8151.7
4019. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8405.
5688.3 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13825.0
5692. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13806.
4-35
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6B CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 TRANSLATIONS (in)
3 6 9 12 18 24 30 36 39
.0033 .0108 .0044 .0053 .0063 .0062 .0222 .0081 .0056
.0034 .0108 .0044 .0053 .0063 .0062 .0222 .0080 .0056
.0023 .0024 .0024 .0038 .0066 .0039 .0020 .0689 .0109
.0023 .0024 .0024 .0038 .0066 .0039 .0020 .0684 .0108
.0029 .0110 .0042 .0051 .0085 .0043 .0041 .0151 .0053
.0029 .0110 .0042 .0051 .0085 .0043 .0041 .0151 .0053
ROTATIONS (deg)
3 6 9 12 18 24 30 36 39
.0037 .0006 .0035 .0028 .0034 .0012 .0075 .0138 .0108
.0037 .0006 .0035 .0028 .0034 .0012 .0075 .0136 .0107
.0034 .0033 .0035 .0033 .0024 .0018 .0025 .0031 .0046
.0034 .0033 .0035 .0033 .0024 .0018 .0024 .0031 .0046
.0032 .0003 .0034 .0038 .0015 .0016 .0038 .0159 .0175
.0032 .0003 .0034 .0038 .0015 .0016 .0037 .0158 .0173
4-36
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 6B CAESAR II JOB NUREG6 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 10 20 26 30 34 41
1182. 2810. 1289. 2438. 0. 375. 1973.
1187. 2811. 1288. 2434. 0. 374. 1967.
2298. 0. 1721. 2736. 4067. 0. 1748.
2297. 0. 1722. 2725. 4046. 0. 1738.
1060. 1589. 1368. 1850. 0. 1440. 929.4
1059. 1585. 1367. 1847. 0. 1397. 927.

1 10 20 26 30 34 41
7079.2 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11050.
7076. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 11014.
3857.5 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8130.
3871. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8383.
5255.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13816.7
5259. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 13793.
4-37
4-38
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
5.034 7.813 8.193 8.977 9.312 9.895 13.22 14.96 15.07 17.75 18.21 22.90 25.02 25.85 26.94 28.13 30.30 35.22 37.10 42.61 44.42 48.09
5.035 7.814 8.194 8.890 9.314 9.897 13.227 14.960 15.071 17.757 18.217 22.907 25.035 25.860 26.957 28.149 30.315 35.266 37.105 42.641 44.429 48.103
4-39
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 TRANSLATIONS (in)
2 6 8 11 16 25 30 33 41 50 70
73
.0002 .0459 .0557 .0848 .0098 .0001 .0 .0356 .0069 .0006 .0 .0039 .0062 .0008 .0001 .0056 .0013
.0002 .0459 .0556 .0848 .0098 .0001 .0 .0356 .0069 .0006 .0 .0039 .0062 .0008 .0001 .0056 .0013
.0 .2129 .2438 .2439 .0156 .0066 ? .0286 .0337 .0 .0059 .0195 .0375 .0 .0320 .0448 .0
.0 .2127 .2436 .2437 .0156 .0066 .0091 .0286 .0336 .0 .0059 .0195 .0375 .0 .0320 .0448 .0
.0016 .0103 .0425 .3115 .3428 .2350 .1122 .0781 .0781 .0013 .0066 .0104 .0104 .0003 .0671 .0662 .0014
.0016 .0102 .0425 .3115 .3425 .2348 .1120 .0780 .0779 .0013 .0066 .0104 .0104 .0003 .0670 .0661 .0014
81 90 111 115 130
4-40
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 ROTATIONS (deg)
2 6 8 11 16 25 30 33 41 50 70 73 81 90 111 115
.0283 .2768 .3222 .3139 .2114 .1395 .0665 .0263 .0214 .0082 .0098 .0206 .0056 .0019 .0260 .0265
.0283 .2765 .3219 .3136 .2112 .1393 .0664 .0263 .0214 .0082 .0098 .0206 .0056 .0019 .0260 .0265
.0085 .0585 .0642 .0733 .0903 .1209 .1067 .0373 .0720 .0120 .0155 .0048 .0041 .0018 .0104 .0189
.0085 .0584 .0641 .0732 .0902 .1208 .1066 .0372 .0719 .0120 .0155 .0048 .0041 .0018 .0104 .0189
.0025 .0295 .0360 .0345 .0151 .0073 .0037 .0139 .0385 .0043 .0135 .0252 .0454 .0056 .0566 .0607
.0025 .0294 .0360 .0345 .0151 .0073 .0037 .0139 .0384 .0043 .0135 .0252 .0454 .0056 .0565 .0606
4-41
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

20 55 65 110 140
0. 34.3 69.7 0. 34.8
0. 34. 69. 0. 34.
54.5 48.8 54. 51.4 60.7
54. 48. 53. 51. 60.
0. 106.3 96.9 0. 126.5
0. 106. 0. 0. 126.
4-42
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7A CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 SUPPORT MOMENTS (ft-lb)
20 55 65 110 140
0. 307.4 213.8 0. 340.3
0. 307. 213. 0. 340.
0. 265.6 777.8 0. 239.8
0. 265. 777. 0. 239.
0. 131.6 239.7 0. 270.9
0. 131. 238. 0. 270.
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7b CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 TRANSLATIONS (in)
6 11 33 50 73 81 115
.0459 .0848 .0356 .0006 .0039 .0062 .0055
.0459 .0848 .0356 .0006 .0039 .0062 .0055
.2129 .2439 .0286 .0003 .0193 .0374 .0434
.2127 .2437 .0286 .0 .0193 .0374 .0434
.0103 .3115 .0781 .0013 .0102 .0102 .0652
.0102 .3113 .0780 .0013 .0102 .0102 .0652
4-43
ROTATIONS (deg)
6 11 33 50 73 81 115
.2768 .3139 .0263 .0082 .0206 .0056 .0257
.2765 .3136 .0263 .0082 .0206 .0056 .0257
.0585 .0733 .0373 .0120 .0047 .0040 .0185
.0584 .0732 .0372 .0120 .0047 .0040 .0184
.0295 .0345 .0139 .0043 .0250 .0453 .0587
.0294 .0345 .0139 .0043 .0250 .0453 .0587
4-44
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. I 1980. NRC PROBLEM 7B CAESAR II JOB NUREG7 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
20 55 65 110 140
0. 34.3 66.4 0. 34.0
0. 34. 66. 0. 33.
54.6 48.8 52.7 50.0 58.9
54. 48. 52. 49. 58.
0. 106.3 96.4 0. 124.6
0. 106. 96. 0. 124.
Node
NRC
CAESAR II
NRC
CAESAR II
NRC
CAESAR II
20 55 65 110 140
0. 307.4 212.7 0. 335.6
0. 307. 212. 0. 335.
0. 265.6 775.8 0. 236.2
0. 265. 775. 0. 236.
0. 131.6 232.5 0. 262.8
0. 131. 232. 0. 262.
4-45
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1a CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6.042 6.256 7.760 8.943 12.44 12.83 14.30 15.49 16.37 18.54 19.50 23.24 24.10 32.64
6.052 6.258 7.760 8.967 12.453 12.837 14.392 15.500 16.441 18.546 19.513 23.231 24.089 32.637
4-46
NRC Benchmarks
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
15
33.84
34.198
4-47
TRANSLATIONS (in)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0471 .0101 .0234 .0205 .0243 .0087 .0514 .0052
.0471 .0101 .0234 .0205 .0240 .0085 .0504 .0044
.0083 .0658 .0659 .0659 .0591 .0606 .0205 .1127
.0084 .0656 .0657 .0657 .0590 .0605 .0208 .1127
.0524 .0106 .0221 .0143 .0196 .0068 .0211 .0703
.0524 .0107 .0222 .0145 .0200 .0069 .0215 .0701
4-48
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1A CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 ROTATIONS (deg)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0483 .0533 .0220 .0117 .0141 .0325 .0437 .0717
.0483 .0534 .0221 .0119 .0143 .0333 .0437 .071
.0356 .0248 .0225 .0237 .0127 .0169 .0624 .0492
.0356 .0249 .0226 .0238 .0128 .0173 .0635 .0485
.0446 .0502 .0241 .0194 .0180 .0456 .0400 .0252
.0446 .0502 .0241 .0193 .0178 .0446 .0407 .0263
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

1 4 7 14 20 26 28 36
93 0 100 78 78 185 0 120
93 0 100 77 77 182 0 120
107 234 0 0 0 0 221 57
106 233 0 0 0 0 219 56
89 0 84 39 28 59 89 56
88 0 83 38 27 59 91 54
4-49
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1B CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 TRANSLATIONS (in)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0622 .0125 .0256 .0182 .0200 .0075 .0365 .0088
.0622 .0125 .0256 .0182 .0197 .0072 .0361 .0074
.0069 .0566 .0567 .0568 .0535 .0541 .0380 .1876
.0069 .0553 .0554 .0555 .0525 .0530 .0371 .1833
.0689 .0137 .0272 .0161 .0280 .0108 .0428 .1910
.0689 .0137 .0272 .0161 .0275 .0106 .0421 .1891
ROTATIONS (deg)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0648 .0691 .0277 .0130 .0129 .0550 .0594 .0520
.0648 .0691 .0276 .0131 .0128 .0540 .0597 .0523
.0480 .0296 .0249 .0226 .0179 .0440 .1264 .0631
.0480 .0297 .0249 .0225 .0179 .0434 .1243 .0629
.0586 .0629 .0263 .0167 .0149 .0392 .1132 .0582
.0586 .0629 .0263 .0167 .0148 .0377 .1098 .0583
4-50
NRC Benchmarks
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

1 4 7 14 20 26 28 36
86 0 84 55 57 136 0 84
85 0 82 55 57 135 0 84
93 202 0 0 0 0 152 67
90 197 0 0 0 0 151 65
81 0 74 34 26 53 95 74
80 0 73 33 25 51 93 74
4-51
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 1C CAESAR II JOB NUREG8 TRANSLATIONS (in)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0724 .0147 .0303 .0204 .0256 .0100 .0499 .0122
.0724 .0147 .0303 .0203 .0252 .0096 .0494 .0103
.0095 .0779 .0782 .0783 .0737 .0746 .0526 .0260
.0095 .0762 .0764 .0765 .0724 .0731 .0515 .2543
.0800 .0161 .0322 .0199 .0383 .0149 .0593 .0265
.0800 .0161 .0321 .0198 .0377 .0147 .0584 .2629
ROTATIONS (deg)
3 6 12 18 24 27 29 33
.0746 .0809 .0326 .0157 .173 .0761 .0818 .0720
.0750 .0807 .0325 .0157 .0171 .0749 .0823 .0707
.0554 .0344 .0296 .0286 .0236 .0606 .1753 .0871
.0554 .0344 0285 0285 .0235 .0600 .1726 .0870
.0681 .0738 .0309 .0191 .0186 .0528 .1571 .0806
.0681 .0738 .0309 .0190 .0186 .0508 .1525 .0810
4-52
NRC Benchmarks
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

1 4 7 14 20 26 28 36
117 0 113 65 63 185 0 116
114 0 111 65 63 184 0 116
128 278 0 0 0 0 204 92
125 271 0 0 0 0 203 90
109 0 100 44 35 72 131 103
107 0 98 43 34 70 128 102
4-53
4-54 NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz) MODE NRC CAESAR II
NRC Benchmarks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
9.360 12.71 15.38 17.80 21.60 25.10 32.03 38.07 40.29 48.90 57.51 61.50 62.54 69.35 77.44 78.88 101.7 103.6 108.0 115.1 135.2 155.2 160.6 203.8 209.9
9.362 12.708 15.379 17.800 21.606 25.102 32.039 38.075 40.299 48.905 57.524 61.510 62.550 69.359 77.456 78.893 101.731 103.598 107.983 115.116 135.265 155.244 160.626 203.820 209.957
4-55
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2A CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
.0105 .0431 .0475 .0280 .0108 .0285 .0849 .0476 .0286
.0105 .0431 .0475 .0280 .0107 .0285 .0849 .0476 .0286
.0 .0049 .0249 .0379 .0249 .0186 .0085 .0001 .0318
.0 .0049 .0249 .0379 .0249 .0186 .0085 .0001 .0318
.0250 .0907 .0327 .0491 .0631 .0633 .0635 .0401 .0421
.0250 .0907 .0327 .0491 .0631 .0633 .0635 .0401 .0421
ROTATIONS (deg)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
.0457 .0515 .0389 .0309 .0201 .0105 .0102 .0359 .0105
.0457 .0515 .0389 .0309 .0201 .0105 .0102 .0359 .0105
.0260 .0688 .1012 .0950 .0289 .0328 .0514 .0496 .0343
.0260 .0688 .1012 .0949 .0289 .0328 .0511 .0496 .0343
.0190 .0269 .0268 .0217 .0203 .0224 .0299 .0476 .0128
.0190 .0268 .0267 .0217 .0203 .0224 .0299 .0476 .0128
4-56
NRC Benchmarks
RX
RY
RZ
20
.0215
.0214
.0273
.0273
.0090
.0090
4-57
SUPPORT FORCES (lb)

1 7 9 11 13 15 17 21
90 0 446 0 0 188 58 378
90 0 445 0 0 187 58 377
65 0 0 206 164 188 198 192
64 0 0 206 164 187 197 191
177 708 0 0 0 263 103 245
177 707 0 0 0 262 103 245
4-58
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2B CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
.0064 .0267 .0295 .0170 .0029 .0103 .0530 .0301 .0103 .0033
.0064 .0267 .0295 .0170 .0029 .0103 .0530 .0301 .0103 .0033
.0002 .0031 .0162 .0242 .0152 .0110 .0053 .0001 .0187 .0057
.0 .0031 .0162 .0242 .0152 .0110 .0053 .0001 .0187 .0057
.0158 .0574 .0207 .0311 .0399 .0400 .0401 .0255 .0267 .0
.0158 .0574 .0207 .0311 .0399 .0400 .0401 .0255 .0267 .0
ROTATIONS (deg)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
.0289 .0326 .0247 .0199 .0134 .0071 0062 .0228 .0070
.0289 .0326 .0247 .0199 .0134 .0071 0062 .0228 .0070
.0165 .0435 .0641 .0599 .0075 .0204 .0307 .0276 .0208
.0165 .0435 .0640 .0598 .0075 .0204 .0307 .0276 .0208
.0116 .0172 .0171 .0132 .0120 .0134 .0184 .0301 .0079
.0116 .0171 .0171 .0132 .0120 .0134 .0184 .0301 .0079
4-59
RX
RY
RZ
20
.0128
.0128
.0074
.0074
.0053
.0053
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2B CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 7 9 11 13 15 17 21
53 0 257 0 0 111 32 103
53 0 256 0 0 111 32 103
46 0 0 123 98 111 124 114
46 0 0 123 98 111 123 113
113 441 0 0 0 156 66 116
112 440 0 0 0 156 66 115
4-60
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2C CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 TRANSLATIONS (in)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
.0090 .0373 .0411 .0237 .0043 .0148 .0741 .0420 .0148 .0049
.0090 .0372 .0411 .0237 .0043 .0148 .0740 .0420 .0148 .0049
.0 .0044 .0235 .0355 .0227 .0164 .0074 .0001 .0281 .0085
.0 .0044 .0235 .0355 .0227 .0164 .0074 .0001 .0281 .0085
.0220 .0800 .0289 .0434 .0556 .0558 .0560 .0355 .0372 .0001
.0220 .0800 .0288 .0434 .0556 .0558 .0560 .0355 .0372 .0001
ROTATIONS (deg)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
.0402 .0456 .0347 .0282 .0197 .0104 .0092 .0318 .0104
.0402 .0455 .0346 .0282 .0197 .0104 .0092 .0317 .0104
.0229 .0606 .0894 .0835 .0112 .0285 .0429 .0387 .0291
.0229 .0605 .0893 .0835 .0112 .0285 .0429 .0387 .0291
.0163 .0244 .0252 .0196 .0179 .0199 .0260 .0421 .0116
.0163 .0244 .0252 .0196 .0179 .0199 .0260 .0420 .0116
4-61
RX
RY
RZ
20
.0191
.0191
.0110
.0110
.0079
.0079
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 2C CAESAR II JOB NUREG9 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 7 9 11 13 15 17 21
76 0 350 0 0 151 45 152
76 0 350 0 0 151 45 151
70 0 0 184 146 151 169 170
69 0 0 184 146 151 168 169
156 607 0 0 0 212 91 158
155 607 0 0 0 211 90 157
4-62
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3A CAESAR II JOB NURG10 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7.238 10.14 14.58 15.99 17.20 17.99 22.28 23.63 27.86 29.21 29.51 31.55 34.02 34.78 35.12
7.242 10.148 14.584 16.011 17.192 17.990 22.268 23.622 27.853 29.197 29.474 31.554 34.025 34.763 35.114
4-63
TRANSLATIONS (in)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0216 .0027 .0039 .1699 .6114 .3732 .0003 .0328
.0216 .0027 .0039 .1699 .6114 .3714 .0003 .0327
.0 .0110 .0142 .0356 .0082 1.1035 .0711 .0
.0 .0111 .0143 .0354 .0082 1.1024 .0710 .0
.0217 .0162 .0119 .2370 .4958 .0600 .0014 .0441
.0216 .0162 .0119 .2367 .4943 .0597 .0014 .0441
ROTATIONS (deg)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0154 .0463 .1067 .2783 .2751 .0923 .0263 .2508
.0154 .0463 .1066 .2777 .2752 .0920 .0262 .2503
.0087 .0175 .0142 .3438 .1092 .1198 .0039 .2742
.0087 .0174 .0142 .3434 .1090 .1196 .0039 .2739
.0131 .0109 .0122 .2015 .3571 .7063 .2833 .1873
.0132 .0109 .0122 .2012 .3573 .7070 .2832 .1870
4-64
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3A CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 5 8 13 14 14A 18 20 25 29 29A 32 37 41 49 55 59
1685
1684
87 359 729
87 363 736
1370
1367
6784
6781 784 796
315
312
37 31
35 30 1043 1378 1043 1376
800 302
796 301
4325
4319 3408 3389
6063
6052
9758
9724 1448 1447 8921 10
6969
6941
3638
3624
8931 11
2601
2591
1095 3031
1095 3019 15859 15850
7760 896
7769 912
4-65
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3B CAESAR II JOB NURG10 TRANSLATIONS (in)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0274 .0038 .0022 .0890 .5674 .1943 .0003 .0173
.0274 .0038 .0022 .0889 .5671 .1934 .0003 .0172
0. .0158 .0256 .0184 .0092 .3888 .0230 0.
0. .0159 .0257 .0184 .0092 .3383 .0229 0.
.0274 .0227 .0079 .1241 .5219 .0595 .0011 .0232
.0273 .0227 .0079 .1240 .5213 .0592 .0012 .0232
ROTATIONS (deg)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0184 .0569 .1256 .3361 .2629 .0548 .0198 .3028
.0185 .0570 .1256 .3359 .2629 .0545 .0197 .3027
.0163 .0243 .0102 .1779 .1195 .0941 .0032 .1441
.0163 .0243 .0102 .1778 .1196 .0941 .0032 .1441
.0165 .0140 .0220 .2306 .3345 .3349 .0926 .2143
.0165 .0140 .0221 .2305 .3344 .3353 .0924 .2141
4-66
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3B CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 5 8 13 14 14A 18 20 25 29 29A 32 37 41 49 55 59
3160
3147
109 524 1144
109 527 1150
2408
2398
4948
4936 1068 1075
230
227
38 32
37 31 1416 1666 1420 1668
831 311
830 310
2562
2560 2776 2779
3591
3588
4800
4795 1736 1736 2916 3
3428
3423
2522
2516
2923 4
1803
1799
956 2834
957 2831 4923 4918
6778 803
6791 817
4-67
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3C CAESAR II JOB NURG10 TRANSLATIONS (in)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0442 .0058 .0030 .1266 .8272 .2773 .0004 .0245
.0442 .0059 .0030 .1263 .8258 .2757 .0004 .0244
0. .0248 .0414 .0259 .0130 .5475 .0320 0.
0. .0249 .0415 .0258 .0129 .5462 .0319 0.
.0442 .0350 .0114 .1766 .7619 .0780 .0015 .0330
.0442 .0350 .0114 .1763 .7602 .0774 .0015 .0330
ROTATIONS (deg)
5 10 17 31 36 51 58 29A
.0272 .0847 .1837 .4895 .3800 .0728 .0270 .4411
.0272 .0848 .1835 .4888 .3796 .0725 .0268 .4404
.0225 .0375 .0149 .2534 .1742 .1335 .0041 .2048
.0225 .0374 .0149 .2529 .1741 .1333 .0042 .2045
.0249 .0210 .0355 .3352 .4852 .4797 .1292 .3114
.0249 .0211 .0356 .3347 .4845 .4797 .1289 .3109
4-68
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 3C CAESAR II JOB NURG10 SUPPORT FORCES (lb)
1 5 8 13 14 14A 18 20 25 29 29A 32 37 41 49 55 59
4353
4342
168 832 1828
169 837 1837
3376
3368
6859
6843 1689 1701
318
315
59 50
57 50 2149 2467 2154 2467
1275 490
1275 490
3677
3671 4062 4064
5155
5145
6848
6834 2537 2534 3996 5
4891
4872
3453
3440
4001 5
2472
2460
1325 3937
1324 3927 6819 6804
9390 1069
9388 1087
4-69
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 4 CAESAR II JOB NURG11 NATURAL FREQUENCY REPORT (Hz)
MODE NRC CAESAR II MODE NRC CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2.612 2.914 4.337 4.660 5.734 5.833 7.359 7.769 9.952 10.33 10.68 10.94 12.03 12.29 13.25 13.41
2.613 2.937 4.337 4.664 5.735 5.832 7.358 7.768 9.952 10.340 10.678 10.942 12.028 12.284 13.249 13.406
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
18.71 18.90 19.99 21.46 21.52 22.74 23.28 24.07 24.54 25.12 26.52 26.94 27.51 28.66 29.5 30.60
18.733 18.908 20.007 21.469 21.525 22.743 23.293 24.065 24.588 25.111 26.513 27.368 27.507 28.659 29.537 30.592
4-70
NRC Benchmarks
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
MODE
NRC
CAESAR II
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
14.43 14.72 15.52 15.55 16.17 16.80 17.23 17.28 17.45
14.428 14.717 15.252 15.552 16.167 17.092 17.233 17.375 17.486
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
31.27 32.38 35.48 36.02 36.39 36.77 38.00 38.42 40.18
31.342 32.291 35.467 36.020 36.394 36.743 38.055 38.421 40.174
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NURG11 TRANSLATIONS (in)
10 17 25 35 42 54 62 72 83 106 155 176 183
.0119 .0389 .1314 .1143 .1021 .0419 .1866 .5515 .7725 .2204 .4726 .8110 .8830
.0118 .0388 .1313 .1144 .1021 .0433 .1866 .5519 .7729 .2204 .4988 .8459 .9240
.0094 .0391 .0558 .0327 .0137 .0776 .1008 .0351 .2719 .1192 .3190 .0306 .0476
.0094 .0391 .0558 .0331 .0137 .0777 .1010 .0352 .2720 .1191 .3305 .0301 .0472
.0027 .0278 .1092 .0893 .1716 .1946 .6260 .1924 .0955 .1306 .9143 .9478 .8175
.0027 .0278 .1091 .0893 .1716 .1947 .6264 .1925 .0956 .1307 .9630 .9968 .8609
4-71
ROTATIONS (deg)
10 17 25 35 42 54 62 72 83 106 155 176 183
.0386 .0471 .0808 .0619 .0587 .2031 .2266 .1503 .0231 .1306 .1070 .0763 .0696
.0386 .0471 .0808 .0618 .0588 .2032 .2267 .1504 .0236 .1305 .1115 .0754 .0696
.0470 .0525 .0681 .0961 .1469 .2390 .3883 .4390 .1774 .0584 .1721 .1633 .1002
.0469 .0524 .0681 .0960 .1469 .2392 .3884 .4392 .1775 .0583 .1797 .1657 .0916
.0175 .0231 .0464 .0104 .0519 .0832 .1291 .2127 .5153 .1810 .1928 .0889 .0335
.0175 .0231 .0464 .0103 .0521 .0833 .1292 .2128 .5156 .1811 .1969 .0881 .0378
4-72
NRC Benchmarks
NRC BULLETIN NUREG-51267 VOL. II 1985. NRC PROBLEM 4A CAESAR II JOB NURG11 SUPPORT FORCE (lb) *
1 17 29 43 56 67 72 74 94 108 117 127 135 141 165 188 192
3724
3722
2390 42 2466
2405 42 2473
2156
2151
4751 2096 2553
4756 2179 2554 2669 2673 1642 4743 63 432
365 151 6152
365 156 6154
2428 3334
2428 3337
1641 4739 64 432
5862 861
5866 871
2034 1819
2033 1803 749 564 1699
188
186 398 385
773 561
1771 3901
1782 4004 1066 1170 1093 1218 745
1656
970
1010
749
2952
3187
4-73
CH AP TER
Chapter 5 ASME Benchmarks

The following sheets describe the two piping jobs found in: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification - An Aid to Developers and Users. This document was published by the American Society of mechanical Engineers in 1972. These two jobs are briefly described below: 1. The modal analysis of a coffee table like structure. 2. The static analysis of a 3D piping system. Any special settings of the CAESAR II configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job. This job is an ASME Verification job published by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division. The title of the publication is: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification, Library of Congress Card No. 72-94235. This job is a modal analysis of a three dimensional structure, similar to the other coffee table models. The CAESAR II job name is ASME1. The first fourteen modes of the system were extracted by CAESAR II and compared to the published results. The published results are from four sources: measurements, Code A, Code B, and ANSYS. The ASME document did not identify Code A or Code B.

MODE MEASURED CODE A CODE B ANSYS CAESAR II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
110 117 134 214 359 382 416 553 * 697 * 821 853 885 898
109.0 115.9 135.0 212.5 352.4 394.6 422.2 532.1 655.8 684.9 760.7 822.1 849.3 873.2 903.5
110.5 115.0 134.7 211.7 385.5 404.2 433.0 517.5
111.5 115.9 137.6 218.0 404.2 422.7 451.7 554.0
111.2355 115.8009 137.1691 215.7990 404.2702 422.6415 451.5992 549.0119
693.0 727.1 800.0 838.2 870.7
735.7
733.5886
762.3 852.6 894.1 910.2
758.5624 851.3538 892.2800 893.0593
5-2
ASME Benchmarks
MODE
MEASURED
CODE A
CODE B
ANSYS
CAESAR II
16
910.8283
In the previous table, the asterisk indicates modes which were not observed experimentally, while CODE_A found them both and CODE_B found one. Neither ANSYS nor CAESAR II computed these modes.
This job is an ASME Verification job published by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division. The title of the publication is: Pressure Vessel and Piping 1972 Computer Programs Verification, Library of Congress Card No. 72-94235. This job is a static analysis of a three dimensional piping system the CAESAR II job name is ASME6.
CAESAR II RESULTS, ASME BENCHMARK JOB #6
RESTRAINT LOADS (lbs)

PROGRAM NODE 2 NODE 20 NODE 23
FX WESTDYN ANSYS ADLPIPE CAESAR II 49 49 49 49
FY -4 -3 -2 -3
FZ -144 -144 -144 -144
FX
FY
FZ -1981 -1985 -2003 -1975
FX 238 238 238 238
FY 469 513 502 488
FZ 2126 2129 2146 2120
-287 -837 -286 -713
-287 -737 -287 -723
RESTRAINT MOMENTS (in-lb)

PROGRAM NODE 2 NODE 20 NODE 23
MX MY MZ WESTDYN -10 34 20
MX -66516
MY -1407
MZ
MX
MY
MZ 210
16599 13173 -11382
Chapter 5 ASME Benchmarks
5-3
PROGRAM
NODE 2
NODE 20
NODE 23
ANSYS ADLPIPE CAESAR II
34 -12 -12
33 48 36
20 24 24
-66572 -66984 -66492
-1442 -1428 -1416
16591 11678 -11357 16662 13608 -11400 16620 13440 -11400
221 216 216
DISPLACEMENTS (in)
NODE DX DY DZ
ANSYS 4 9 12 16 19 .04688 .14652 .20071 .18648 .18510
CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS .0489 .1467 .2006 .1863 .1850 -.00284 .06352 .03749 .01129 .02837 -.0028 .0628 .0367 .0106 .0284 -.14418 -.25589 -.23096 -.21779 -.17186
CAESAR II -.1450 -.2581 -.2322 -.2184 -.1718
ROTATIONS (rad)
NODE RX RY RZ
ANSYS 4 9 12 16 19 -.00096 -.00150 -.00194 -.00191 -.00440
CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS -.0010 -.0016 -.0020 -.0020 -.0045 .00333 .00128 .00063 .00033 -.00204 .0034 .0013 .0007 .0004 -.0020 .00200 .00169 .00168 .00158 .00023
CAESAR II .0020 .0017 .0017 .0016 .0002
5-4
ASME Benchmarks
CH AP TER
Chapter 6 General Benchmarks

This chapter contains a mixture of jobs collected from various sources. Several of these jobs can be found in the User Guides of other software packages, several of these jobs were obtained from our customers requesting a comparison to CAESAR II, and some jobs were obtained from publications. Each job will be briefly described before the CAESAR II comparisons are presented. Any special settings of the CAESAR II configuration file will be noted in the title page of the input for each job.
In This Chapter
ANSYS Benchmark .............................................................. 6-2 ADLPIPE Benchmark ........................................................... 6-6 AUTOPIPE Benchmark ........................................................ 6-8 DYNAFLEX Benchmarks .................................................... 6-13 TRIFLEX Benchmark ........................................................... 6-23 UBEND Benchmark ............................................................. 6-25 SIMFLEX Benchmarks......................................................... 6-28 PIPESTRESS Benchmarks ................................................... 6-38 E400 Benchmark ................................................................... 6-43 CAEPIPE Benchmarks ......................................................... 6-48 L- Bend Benchmark .............................................................. 6-58
6-2
General Benchmarks
ANSYS Benchmark
This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II to ANSYS Version 4.4A. The problem description can be found in the ANSYS User Manual pg. 3.5.6.2. The differences in the analysis methods employed by these two programs cause the results to vary by up to 20% are noted below.
1 When using the ANSYS piping input module of PREP7, be aware of the modeling assumptions made. Typical piping programs (such as CAESAR II) generate bend radii based on 1.5 times the nominal pipe diameter. ANSYS generates the bend radii based on 1.5 times the outer diameter. This means that for pipe sizes smaller than 14 inches, the two programs will generate different models in the default generation mode. 2 Proper modeling of rigid elements has always been an important consideration when analyzing a system on two different programs. CAESAR II computes the stiffness of rigid elements by increasing the element thickness by a factor of 10, keeping the inner diameter constant. ANSYS uses a flexibility factor of 0.5, which makes the element twice as stiff as a standard pipe. 3 ANSYS assumes closed ended pipes, which includes an axial pressure force in the analysis. In order to perform in a similar fashion, CAESAR II must be set to use Bourdon option #2. 4 When using the ANSYS pipe modeler, and changing temperature at a branch, ANSYS also changes the temperature of the two header elements which make up the tee. In order to generate the same model in CAESAR II, the tee must be modeled as three pieces of pipe and the temperatures set appropriately.
The displacement comparison and the element force comparison are shown below. The restraint comparison is shown on the following plots.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:ANSYS1 DISPLACEMENTS Case 1 - Operating (Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

DX Node CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II DY ANSYS CAESAR II DZ ANSYS
1 5 14 20 27 35 41
-.4000 -.0859 0.0721 0.2095 -.0075 -.1771 -.4931
-.4000 -.0859 0.0729 0.2108 -.0077 -.1774 -.4950
0.0000 -.0155 -.0453 -.2441 -.2205 -.0829 -.1380
0.0000 -.01547 -.04487 -.24459 -.2208 -.0836 -.1434
0.0000 -.0004 0.4111 0.3616 0.0858 -.0445 -.0951
0.0000 -.00037 0.4139 0.3643 0.0888 -.0421 -.09265
6-3
DX
DY
DZ
45
-.3414
-.3420
-.0904
-.0912
-.0938
-.0914
Case 2 - Thermal ( Temperature )

1 5 14 20 27 35 41 45
0.0 -.0059 0.174 -.0442 -.1204 -.0787 -.0404 -.0783
0.0 -.0051 0.173 -.0443 -.1203 -.0787 -.0405 -.0783
0.0 -.0052 -.0162 -.0492 -.0026 0.1108 0.0211 0.1601
0.0 -.0051 -.0162 -.0493 -.0027 0.1107 0.0212 .15997
0.0 -.0179 -.0645 -.1017 -.1199 -.1469 -.3447 -.2512
0.0 -.0179 -.0645 -.1016 -.11999 -.1470 -.3448 -.25135
Case 3 - Occasional ( Weight+Uniform )

1 5 14 20 27 35 41 45
0.0 0.0036 0.0157 0.0505 -.0137 -.1076 -.1323 -.1646
0.0 0.0036 0.01575 0.0506 -.0137 -.1076 -.1324 -.1647
0.0 -.0102 -.0661 -.1849 -.1737 -.0850 -.0741 -.0833
0.0 -.0102 -.06605 -.18496 -.1738 -.08506 -.0742 -.08325
0.0 0.0 0.0345 0.0088 -.1029 -.0825 -.0828 -.0828
0.0 .000014 0.0345 0.00889 -.10299 -.0826 -.0829 -.0829
6-4
General Benchmarks
CAESAR II / ANSYS Benchmark
FORCES Case 1 - Operating ( Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

FX Element CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II FY ANSYS CAESAR II FZ ANSYS
1 5 22 25
741. -741. 741. -741.
733. -733. 733. -733.
644 -612. -258. 304.
642. -610. -261. 307.
430. -430. 430. -430.
436. -436. 436. -436.
STRESSES Case 1 - Operating ( Weight+Displacements+Pressure+Uniform+Forces)

FX Element CAESAR II AXIAL ANSYS AXIAL CAESAR II BENDING FY ANSYS BENDING CAESAR II TORSION FZ ANSYS TORSION
1 5 22 25
1467. 1467. 1441. 1448.
1468. 1468. 1441. 1448.
16409. 13657. 2426. 3618.
16408. 13680. 2419. 3582.
293. -293. -2217. 2217.
303. -303. -2235. 2235.
6-5
6-6
General Benchmarks
ADLPIPE Benchmark
This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II to ADLPIPE Version 3D34A. This job is a small flare line, consisting of a riser and an elbow. Comparison of Results between CAESAR II and ADLPIPE .
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:ADL2 Displacement Report Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Translations (in.)
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II ADLPIPE CAESAR II ADLPIPE
60 60 449 450
.3648 .366 .0088 .009
.0000 -.000 .0407 .041
-.3804 -.381 -.0137 -.014
Rotations (deg.)
Node RX RY RZ
60 60 449 450
.1201 120 .1296 .130
-.0453 -.045 -.0282 -.028
.0002 -.001 -.0516 -.052
Restraint Loads Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Forces (lb.)

Node FX FY FZ
40 40 65 65
-818. -820. 0. -0.
255. 256. 103. 104.
98. 98. -98. -98.
6-7
Expansion Stresses Comparison CASE 1 (EXP) T1 Stresses (lb./sq.in.)

NODE BENDING STRESS TORSION STRESS INTENSIFICATION IN PLANE OUT PLANE CODE STRESS
450 451 500 .501
270. 270.8 108. 108.2
22. 21.7 0. 0.0
8.233 8.233 1.000 1.000
6.861 6.861 1.000 1.000
274. 274.3 108. 108.2
6-8
General Benchmarks
AUTOPIPE Benchmark
This benchmark compares the results of CAESAR II to AUTOPIPE Version 4.03. This is a small static system which illustrates the differences in modeling assumptions between these two programs. These differences are listed below and in the title page of the CAESAR II input.
1 Rigid valves were modeled in CAESAR II using Diam= 5.99 and t= 0.29 to approximate AUTOPIPEs stiffness of 100 times normal pipe. The weight of these elements was increased by 21 pounds to account for the insulation. 2 CAESAR II must be set to use Bourdon option #2 to match the pressure cases. 3 Densities and expansion coefficients were adjusted to match those in the AUTOPIPE listing. 4 Anchor movements were obtained from the AUTOPIPE output, since there are more decimal places contained in the output than in the input. 5 The following CAESAR II configuration directives must be set:
USE_PRESSURE_STIFFENING=NO ADD_TORSION_IN_SL_STRESS=YES ADD_F/A_IN_STRESS=YES
6 The P2 value is 1.1 * P1, needed for the stress calculations in cases 4 to 6, since AUTOPIPE used Pmax.
This job was obtained from a client. This job compares the results of a static CAESAR II run against a similar analysis performed with AUTOPIPE. There are notes contained in the CAESAR II input title page which list the specific items which must be accounted for (such as rigid element modeling) necessary to get the two programs to agree. Several modifications must be made to the standard CAESAR II configuration file in order to run this job.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:AP1

Load case definitions for the two programs are:
CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE
1 2 3 4 5 6
W D1+T1 P1 W+P2 W+D1+T1+P2 L5-L4
GR T1 P1 MAX P GR+MAX P COLD to T1
The P2 case is 1.1*P1 since this looks like what AUTOPIPE did for the stress calculation.
6-9
DISPLACEMENTS (in)
DX Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II DY AUTOPIPE CAESAR II DZ AUTOPIPE
1101/A01N
1 2 3
.0000 .1052 .0002
.0000 .105 .000
-.0048 .0552 .0000
-.005 .055 .000
-.0001 .0672 .0000
.000 .067 .000
103/A03
1 2 3
.0230 .0859 .0016
.022 .086 .002
-.0104 .1446 .0001
-.010 .144 .000
-.0148 .0780 .0000
-.015 .078 .000
106/106F
1 2 3
-.0213 -.5126 -.0002
-.022 -.513 .001
-.0132 .0101 .0003
-.013 .010 .000
-.0971 -.5379 -.0041
-.098 -.537 -.004
110/A10
1 2 3
-.0100 .2396 .0066
-.010 .239 .009
.0000 .0000 .0000
.0000 .0000 .0000
.0188 .0242 -.0021
.019 .025 -.003
112/A12F
1 2 3
.0036 .0159 .0001
.004 .016 .000
-.0087 .1526 .0014
-.009 .152 .002
-.0044 -.0314 -.0004
-.004 -.031 -.001
6-10
General Benchmarks
RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE CAESAR II FY AUTOPIPE CAESAR II FZ AUTOPIPE
100/A00
1 2 3
-8 -52 -1
-8 -52 -1
-1157 -21 -1
-1143 -21 -1
9 57 1
9 57 2
107/A07
1 2 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
-360 -13 1
-363 -13 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
108/A08
1 2 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
-200 122 -3
-201 122 -5
0 0 0
0 0 0
110/A10
1 2 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
-162 -389 1
-164 -390 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
114/A14
1 2 3
8 52 1
8 52 1
-154 301 2
-155 302 2
-9 -57 -1
-9 -57 -2
6-11
STRESSES (psi)
VALUE Node CASE CAESAR II AUTOPIPE TYPE
100/A00
4 6
6988 1748
6745 1738
SUSTAINED EXPANSION
101/A01F 4 + 6
1956 1850
1825 1849
SUSTAINED EXPANSION
107/A07
4 6
3163 1899
2995 1890
SUSTAINED EXPANSION
111/A11F 4 6
1607 3508
1647 3424
SUSTAINED EXPANSION
6-12
General Benchmarks
6-13
DYNAFLEX Benchmarks
This section includes two Dynaflex benchmark jobs. The first job is a small static job which is discussed in Section 5.3 of the Dynaflex Users Guide. The second Dynaflex benchmark is a much larger system, which models a steam piping system. This job was obtained from a client. For this job, the CAESAR II loading consists of a single case with the force vector, which activates cold spring. Additionally, the following configuration directives must be set. ALPHA_TOLERANCE=0.5 BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: DYNHGR Displacement Results Comparison (Restrained Weight Case) CASE 1 (SUS) W Translations (in.)
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II
10
-.0022 -.002
-.0035 -.004
.0000 .000
DYNAFLEX 10F
CAESAR II
25
.0042 .004
-.0001 .000
.0019 .002
DYNAFLEX 25F
Rotations (deg.)
Node RX RY RZ
CAESAR II
10
.0000 .000
.0000 .000
-.0324 -.032
DYNAFLEX 10F
CAESAR II
25
.0034 .003
.0096 .010
-.0106 -.011
DYNAFLEX 25F
6-14
General Benchmarks
Comparison of Displacement Results ( Free Thermal Case ) CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Translations (in.)
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II
15
.3229 .323
.1479 .148
.0000 .000
DYNAFLEX 15
CAESAR II
23
-.0241 -.024
.1549 .155
-.0922 -.092
DYNAFLEX 23F
CAESAR II
55
.0203 .020
.1594 .159
.1843 .184
DYNAFLEX 55F
Rotations (deg.)
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II
15
.0000 .000
.0000 .000
.0657 .066
DYNAFLEX 15
CAESAR II
23
-.0101 -.010
.0764 .076
-.0002 .000
DYNAFLEX 23F
CAESAR II
55
-.0076 -.008
-.1734 -.173
.0159 .016
DYNAFLEX 55 F
6-15
Comparison of Restraint Loads( Restrained Weight Case )CASE 1(SUS)W Forces (lb.)
Node FX FY FZ RESULTANT
CAESAR II
38. 38.
-240. -240.
0. 0.
243. 243.
DYNAFLEX 5
CAESAR II
21
34. 34.
-421. -420
0. 0.
34. 34.
DYNAFLEX 21
CAESAR II
56
34. 34.
-421 -420
0. 0.
421. 421.
DYNAFLEX 56
CAESAR II
76
-53. -53.
-590. -525.
1. 1.
592. 528.
DYNAFLEX 75
Moments (ft.lb.)
Node MX MY MZ RESULTANT
CAESAR II
0. 0.
0. 0.
-506. -505.
506. 505.
DYNAFLEX 5
CAESAR II
21
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
DYNAFLEX 21
CAESAR II
56
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
DYNAFLEX 56
CAESAR II
76
-65 -65
-147. -147.
-73. -73.
177. 176.
DYNAFLEX 75
6-16
General Benchmarks
Comparison of Restraint Loads ( Free Thermal Case ) CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Forces (lb.)
Node FX FY FZ RESULTANT
CAESAR II
-1885. -1884.
168. 167.
0. 0.
1892. 1891.
DYNAFLEX 5
CAESAR II
21
799. 798.
0. 0.
0. 0.
799. 798.
DYNAFLEX 21
CAESAR II
76
144. 144.
-84. -84.
2. 3.
167. 167.
DYNAFLEX 75
Moments (ft.lb.)
Node MX MY MZ RESULTANT
CAESAR II
0. 0.
0. 0.
-708. -708.
708. 708.
DYNAFLEX 5
CAESAR II
21
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
DYNAFLEX 21
CAESAR II
76
116. 118.
-458. -457.
-740. -741.
878.
DYNAFLEX 75
6-17
Comparison of Thermal Expansion Stress Calculations and SIFs CASE 2 (EXP) T1 Stress (lb./sq.in.)
Node INTENSIFICATION INPLANE OUT-PLANE CODE STRESS ALLOWABLEST RESS
CAESAR II
15
1.518 1.52
1.691 1.69
14016 14008.
30000
DYNAFLEX 15
CAESAR II
60
2.254 2.25
1.878 1.88
727. 727.
30000
DYNAFLEX 60F
CAESAR II
66
1.000 1.00
1.000 1.00
1122. 1122.
30000
DYNAFLEX 65
6-18
General Benchmarks
The second Dynaflex benchmark is a much larger system, which models a steam piping system. This job was obtained from a client. For this job, the CAESAR II loading consists of a single case with the force vector, which activates cold spring. Additionally, the following configuration directives must be set. ALPHA_TOLERANCE=0.5 BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES Comparison of CAESAR II and DYNAFLEX
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:Z1 - Steam Piping System under Cold Spring Load Only D I S P L A C E M E N T S (in)
DX Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II DY DYNAFLEX CAESAR II DZ DYNAFLEX
10 22 44 55 80 102 138 170 204 244 280 348 413 454 512 635
-.1505 -.3246 -.1140 -.4163 -.5108 -3.2686 7.6932 .1343 .0056 .0017 -8.6546 .7155 -.0215 -.0427 -.0625 .0016
-.151 -.328 -.119 -.414 -.540 -3.338 -7.707 .133 .006 .002 -8.661 .718 -.021 -.042 -.062 .002
-.0002 -.9354 -4.9940 -9.8227 -11.6452 .0000 -.9690 -.0963 .0097 -.0012 -1.6385 -12.8068 .0141 -.0788 -.0119 .0066
.000 -.939 -4.964 -9.822 -11.653 .000 -.964 -.090 .010 -.001 -1.617 -12.808 .014 -.076 -.012 .007
.0177 -.0496 -.0380 .4108 4.0394 2.7400 -.0370 .1292 .0029 .0011 .0266 -1.3154 -.0194 .1223 .0724 .0060
.018 -.050 -.042 .403 4.011 2.689 -.038 .127 .003 .001 .026 -1.335 -.019 .121 .072 .006
6-19
R O T A T I O N S (degrees)
MX Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II MY DYNAFLEX CAESAR II MZ DYNAFLEX
10 22 44 55 80 102 138 170 204 244 280 348 413 454 512 635
.0154 -.0564 -.2750 -.3830 .0783 .1358 .0371 .0040 -.0107 -.0187 -.0451 .1832 .0069 -.0114 -.0202 -.0107
.016 -.057 -.277 -.386 .079 .138 .038 .005 -.011 -.018 -.044 .182 .007 -.011 -.020 -.011
-.0215 -.0331 .0278 .1113 .2169 .3126 .2797 -.0516 .0074 -.0096 .1528 .0431 .0066 -.0244 -.0041 .0074
-.022 -.033 .027 .110 .213 .309 .271 -.051 .008 -.010 .153 .044 .007 -.024 -.004 .008
.1006 .4758 .5768 .4091 -.0842 -.2531 -.1444 -.0073 -.0065 -.0020 -.2661 -.0194 .0576 -.0080 -.0198 -.0065
.101 .478 .579 .410 -.086 -.256 -.146 -.008 -.006 -.002 -.265 -.023 .058 -.008 -.020 -.006
R E S T R A I N T L O A D S (pounds)
FX Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II FY DYNAFLEX CAESAR II FZ DYNAFLEX
5 102 216 256 312
-5559 0 -2224 -1435 0
-5597 0 -2239 -1392 0
-18398 15666 -1001 3334 19021
-18604 15826 -970 3267 19044
-8806 0 1898 4817 0
-8865 0 1948 4842 0
6-20
General Benchmarks
FX Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II
FY DYNAFLEX CAESAR II
FZ DYNAFLEX
421 530 645
-7019 -1741 0
-7008 -1723 0
-18845 -948 1152
-18809 -891 1151
9575 1449 0
9418 1470 0
R E S T R A I N T L O A D S (foot-pounds)
MX Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX CAESAR II MY DYNAFLEX CAESAR II MZ DYNAFLEX
5 102 216 256 312 421 530 645
46095 0 -31905 -60792 0 -52320 -22207 0
46603 0 -31644 -60056 0 -50502 -22114 0
-115834 0 22177 -35022 0 208597 7719 0
-116833 0 22812 -35369 0 207240 7752 0
743112 0 -20894 -196 0 770594 -12751 0
746768 0 -20903 -196 0 771453 -13122 0
E X P A N S I O N S T R E S S (psi)
STRESS Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX
10 44 62 112 149 170 258 320
4323 3232 4863 879 2948 600 805 1262
4345 3265 4906 879 2959 589 808 1243
6-21
STRESS Node CAESAR II DYNAFLEX
378 461 528
4387 631 424
4376 623 426
6-22
General Benchmarks
6-23
TRIFLEX Benchmark
This job is a small statics job obtained from the Triflex Users Manual, Appendix H page 21. These results are for an operating case. The CAESAR II job name is TRFLX1. This job is a comparison of Results between CAESAR II and TRIFLEX. The following is a table of results comparing output from the TRIFLEX mainframe computer program and the PC based CAESAR II pipe stress analysis program. This problem was taken from the TRIFLEX manual appendix H, page 21. It is sample problem number 1.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TRFLX1 Comparison of Displacements : ( OPE W+P1+DIS+FOR+T1 ) Units = in

DX Node CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II DY TRFLX CAESAR II DZ TRFLX
10 25 50 77
0.0246 0.1877 -0.0103 -0.0938
0.025 0.188 -0.010 -0.094
-0.1642 0.1617 0.0708 0.000
-0.164 0.162 0.071 0.000
0.0002 0.0012 0.0207 0.000
0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000
Rotations : Units = Degrees

RX Node CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II RY TRFLX CAESAR II RZ TRFLX
10 25 50 77
-0.0005 -0.0007 0.0452 -0.0002
0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000
-0.0006 0.0003 -0.0240 0.0001
0.000 0.000 -0.024 0.000
0.1934 0.0451 -0.2011 -0.002
0.193 0.046 -0.201 0.000
Comparison of Restraint Loads Units = Lbs.

FX Node CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II FY TRFLX CAESAR II FZ TRFLX
5 80
-2792. 1404.
-2776. 1388.
1425. -1694.
1413. -1657.
4. -443.
- 0. -436.
6-24
General Benchmarks
Comparison of Restraint Moments Units = Ft.-Lbs.

MX Node CAESAR II TRFLX CAESAR II MY TRFLX CAESAR II MZ TRFLX
5 80
-17. -2139.
0. -2039.
-14. 916.
0. 900.
-3954. -2324.
-3907. -2289.
6-25
UBEND Benchmark
This benchmark compares CAESAR II results for a U-bend model to the ANSYS Finite Element program from Swanson Analysis and to the I-DEAS program from SDRC. The static comparisons are listed in the tables below, followed by the modal comparisons. Note, only a limited amount of data has been published on this job, so only a few results comparisons can be made This job is a small U bend. The benchmark data has been obtained from two publications:
1 Results of the Finite Element Analysis Demonstration Problems Using SDRC I-DEAS, by Richard Russell and John Priess of SDRC. 2 FEA Demonstration Example Problems Using the ANSYS Code, by Gerald L. Jones, of ABB Impell Corporation.
For this job, the following configuration directives must be set. USE_PRESSURE_STIFFENING=YES BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE=YES
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: UBEND

This job compares CAESAR II results for a U-bend model to the ANSYS Finite Element program from Swanson Analysis and to the I-DEAS program from SDRC. The static comparisons are listed in the tables below, followed by the modal comparisons. Note, only a limited amount of data has been published on this job, so only a few results comparisons can be made.
DISPLACEMENTS (in)
Node DX DY DZ
ROTATIONS (deg)
RX RY RZ
CAESAR II ANSYS I-DEAS
190 33 J
0.9054 1.017 0.9048
-2.5623 -2.788 -2.5619
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.6220 0.0636 0.6220
-0.3236 -0.3226 -0.3236
-0.9435 -1.0084 -0.9434
6-26
General Benchmarks
REACTIONS (lb & ft-lb)

Node FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
100 1 A
1500. 1500. 1500.
302. 306. 302.
-140. -132. -140.
4000. 4000. 4000.
739. 699. 739.
2198. 2217. 2197.
110 6 B
0. 0. 0.
-619. -625. -619.
489. 483. 483.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
180 28 I
0. 0. 0.
-2654. -2652. -2654.
308. 298. 308.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
STRESSES (psi)
Node AXIAL BENDING
100 1 A
6135 179 6135
1655 1660 1655
120 10 C
5994 38 5994
2017 2023 2017
Note, for the modal analysis, the "Z" displacement at node 190 must be removed. The published test job modeled node 190 as completely free.
6-27
NATURAL FREQUENCIES (hz)

MODE CAESAR II ANSYS I-DEAS
1 2 3 4 5
2.3273 2.4385 2.7007 4.3641 15.1753
2.293 2.451 3.273 4.986 13.900
2.341 2.590 3.342 5.252 14.592
6-28
General Benchmarks
SIMFLEX Benchmarks
This section includes two SIMFLEX Benchmark jobs. Both jobs compare the results of thermal bowing analysis This benchmark compares CAESAR II to PENGS, a version of the Simflex program. This run is a thermal bowing run, using weight, pressure, bowing and temperature.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TB4B OPERATING CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)
DX Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II DY PENGS CAESAR II RZ PENGS
10 20 30 31 40 41 50
.0 .1822 .2596 .2851 .3468 .3751 .4343
.0 .182 .260 .285 .348 .376 .435
.0 -.0247 -.0660 -.0638 .0 -.0015 -.0871
.0 -.025 -.066 -.064 .0 -.002 -.089
.0 -.0283 -.0713 -.0807 -.0875 -.1006 -.1499
.0 -.028 -.071 -.081 -.088 -.102 -.152
OPERATING CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FY Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II MZ PENGS
10 40 50
-94 -475 0
-100 -465 0
1136 0 0
1019 0 0
6-29
SUSTAINED CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

10 20 30 31 40 41 50
.0 .0007 .0010 .0062 .0360 .0438 .0440
.0 .0 .001 .006 .035 .043 .043
.0 .0116 .0042 -.0003 .0 -.0083 -.0619
.0 .011 .004 .0 .0 -.008 -.063
.0 .0044 -.0281 -.0373 -.0441 -.0572 -.0995
.0 .005 -.027 -.037 -.044 -.058 -.100
SUSTAINED CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

10 40 50
-82 -486 0
-92 -474 0
1307 0 0
1150 0 0
The following Expansion case results from CAESAR II were obtained by running a load case with T1 only. (Bowing is automatically included with the temperature.)
EXPANSION CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

10 20 30 31 40
.0 .1822 .2596 .2858 .3444
.0 .182 .259 .286 .344
.0 -.0149 -.0648 -.0638 .0
.0 -.015 -.065 -.064 .0
.0 -.0336 -.0824 -.0800 -.0800
.0 -.034 -.082 -.080 -.080
6-30
General Benchmarks
41 50
.3707 .4299
.371 .430
.0011 -.0696
.001 -.070
-.0800 -.1279
-.080 -.128
EXPANSION CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

10 40 50
115 -115 0
107 -106 0
1719 0 0
1603 0 0
6-31
This benchmark compares CAESAR II to PENGS, a version of the Simflex program. This run is a thermal bowing run, using weight, pressure, bowing and temperature.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:TB5B OPERATING CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)
DX Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II DY PENGS
10 20 30 31 40 50 51 60 70
.0 .1822 .2596 .2743 .2499 .1768 .1503 .0911 .0
.0 .182 .260 .275 .250 .177 .150 .091 .0
.0 -.0764 -.1441 -.1368 .0 -.0805 -.0847 -.0363 .0
.0 -.079 -.148 -.142 .0 -.085 -.089 -.039 .0
DZ Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II
RX PENGS
10 20 30 31 40 50 51 60 70
.0 .0408 .0641 .0526 -.0795 -.2115 -.2105 -.1322 .0
.0 .041 .064 .053 -.080 -.212 -.211 -.132 .0
.0 .0770 .1098 .1348 .0223 -.1097 -.1106 -.1106 -.1106
.0 .079 .113 .138 .022 -.114 -.115 -.115 -.115
6-32
General Benchmarks
RY Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II
RZ PENGS
10 20 30 31 40 50 51 60 70
.0 -.0285 -.0219 .0026 .0309 .0666 .1078 .1210 .1287
.0 -.028 -.022 .003 .031 .067 .108 .121 .129
.0 -.0626 -.0934 -.0803 -.0822 .0841 -.0864 -.0568 -.0103
.0 -.064 -.094 -.081 -.083 -.086 -.088 -.059 -.013
OPERATING CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

FX Node CAESAR II PENGS CAESAR II FY PENGS
10 40 70
14 0 -14
13 0 -12
FZ
-183 -663 -112
-186 -657 -111

MX
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40 70
62 0 -62
57 0 --56
DX
600 0 0
571 0 0
MZ
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40
-595 0
-552 0
-26 0
-88 0
6-33
70
SUSTAINED CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

20 30 50 60
.0007 .0010 .0007 .0004
.0 .001 .0 .0
DZ
-.0707 -.1301 -.0772 -.0372
-.073 -.133 -.081 -.040

RX
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
20 30 50 60
.0002 .0003 -.0008 -.0005
.0 .0 .0 .0
RY
.0693 .0988 -.1016 -.1023
.071 .101 -.105 -.106

RZ
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
20 30 50 60
-.0001 -.0001 .0003 .0005
.0 .0 .0 .0
-.0557 -.0811 -.0750 -.0535
-.056 -.081 -.076 -.056
6-34
General Benchmarks
SUSTAINED CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

10 40 70
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
FZ
-191. -654. -113.
-194. -647. -112.

MX
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40 70
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.
MY
540. 0. 0.
509. 0. 0.
MZ
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40 70
-2. 0. 0.
-2. 0. 0.
-161. 0. 0.
-225. 0. 0.
6-35
The following Expansion case results from CAESAR II were obtained by running a load case with T1 only. (Bowing is automatically included with the temperature.)
EXPANSION CASE DISPLACEMENTS (in) AND ROTATIONS (deg)

20 30 50 60
.1822 .2596 .1768 .0911
.182 .259 .177 .091

DZ
-.0391 -.0970 -.0230 .0058
-.039 -.097 -.023 .006

RX
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
20 30 50 60
.0408 .0641 -.2115 -.1322
.041 .064 -.211 -.132

RY
.0531 .0756 -.0559 -.0571
.053 .076 -.056 -.057

RZ
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
20 30 50 60
-.0285 -.0219 .0666 .1210
-.028 -.022 .066 .121
-.0472 -.0847 -.0625 -.0226
-.047 -.085 -.063 -.023
6-36
General Benchmarks
EXPANSION CASE RESTRAINT LOADS (lb) AND MOMENTS (ft-lb)

10 40 70
14. 0. -14.
13. 0. -12.
FZ
58. -64. 6.
54. -59. 6.
MX
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40 70
62. 0. -62.
57. 0. -56.
MY
413. 0. 0.
384. 0. 0.
MZ
Node
CAESAR II
PENGS
CAESAR II
PENGS
10 40 70
-595. 0. 0.
-551. 0. 0.
928. 0. 0.
864. 0. 0.
6-37
6-38
General Benchmarks
PIPESTRESS Benchmarks
This section includes two PIPESTRESS benchmark jobs. PIPESTRESS is a main frame analysis package used mostly in Europe. This job is a comparison of CAESAR II to PIPESTRESS. This job compares the static results for a Z shaped cantilever. The Z is modeled with a straight section between back-to-back bends.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:PSKE4 Job SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS and ROTATIONS

DY (in) NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS RX (deg) CAESAR II PIPESTRESS RX (deg) CAESAR II PIPESTRESS
20 30 40 50 55 60 70
-.0674 -.1833 -.2624 -.2499 .0 -.1798 .0
-.067 -.183 -.264 -.251 -.217 -.179 ..0
-.0120 -.0240 -.0360 -.0717 -.0780 -.1092 -.1092
-.0128 -.0257 -.0385 -.0791 -.0817 -.1133 -.1133
-.0870 -.0850 -.0362 .0342 .0592 .1231 .1532
-.0868 -.0855 -.0385 .0334 .0587 .1235 .1506
SUSTAINED RESTRAINT LOADS

FY (lb) NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS MY (ft-lb) CAESAR II PIPESTRESS MZ (ft-lb) CAESAR II PIPESTRESS
10 70
-947 -536
-940 -544
-401 0
-429 0
-6295 0
. -6111 0
6-39
6-40
General Benchmarks
This job is a comparison of CAESAR II to PIPESTRESS, using the RCC-MC piping code.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: RCCM2. SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II DY PIPESTRESS CAESAR II DZ PIPESTRESS
20 30 40 50 60 100 110 120
.0 -.0081 -.0465 -.0799 .0 -.0443 .0133 .0133
.0 -.008 -.048 -.082 .0 -.045 .015 .015
-.1182 -.1971 -.1439 -.0717 -.0589 -.1936 -.1790 .0
-.122 --.205 -.149 -.074 -.061 -.201 -.185 .0
.0320 .0660 .0060 .0552 .0038 .1340 .2021 .2554
.033 .068 .068 .057 .004 .138 .209 .264
SUSTAINED ROTATIONS (deg)

RX NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II RY PIPESTRESS CAESAR II RZ PIPESTRESS
40 60 110
-.0848 -.0195 -.0848
-.0887 -.0201 -.0887
-.0565 -.0085 -.0565
-.0580 -.0087 -.0580
-.0761 -.0796 .1637
-.0771 -.0829 .1715
SUSTAINED RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II FY PIPESTRESS CAESAR II FZ PIPESTRESS
10 70 120
-56 56 0
-57 57 0
-446 -643 -127
-439 -645 -132
33 -33 0
34 -34 0
6-41
SUSTAINED RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS CAESAR II MY PIPESTRESS CAESAR II MZ PIPESTRESS
10 70
-343 -290
-363 -299
-566 -76
-583 -77
-2778 -3067
-2655 -3062
SUSTAINED CODE STRESSES (psi)

NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS NODE CAESAR II PIPESTRESS
10 @10-20 20 @20-28 30 @28-30 40 @30-40 40 @40-48 58 @58-60 70 @60-70
4810 1503 1954 2384 2155 1860 5130
4649 1491 2044 2458 2140 1898 5123
40 @40-98 98 @98-100
1692 2898
2028 3036 2286 2191
108 @100-108 2204 110 @110-120 2114
6-42
General Benchmarks
6-43
E400 Benchmark
This section includes an E400 benchmark, consisting of both static and dynamic analysis. This job compares CAESAR II results for a small model to E400. Both a static and a dynamic analysis are performed. The dynamic analysis is an earthquake simulation. This job was obtained from the E400 Users Manual, sample problem line 2001A-14" V-204 to P-202A&B, dated Jan 23, 1980. The system was modeled as closely as possible, 10 modes were extracted, and modal results were combined using SRSS methodology; missing mass results were combined using SRSS as well. The job was run on CAESAR II Version 3.19, with a slight modification: the ZPA (for multiplication of the missing mass) was hardcoded as 0.11, rather than having CAESAR II calculate it. This was done due to a difference of philosophy between the two programs E400 multiplies the missing mass by the ZPA taken from the entered spectrum (0.11g), while CAESAR II more conservatively, and in our opinion more correctly, uses the acceleration of the last extracted mode (which in this case is actually 0.241g for mode 10). All results matched between CAESAR II and E400 within nominal tolerances. The percents of included mass varied slightly 40.73% vs. 42.49% for Y, and 59.98% vs. 61.74% for Z. This is due to the fact that E400 does not consider missing mass (for this calculation) in directions normal to the shock, CAESAR II does. However, the fact that the final results are the same tends to indicate that E400 does apply the missing mass normal to the shock when making the correction. When CAESAR II was left to calculate the rigid acceleration factor, it used 0.241g, and the resulting missing mass forces matched, when multiplied by the appropriate correction factor of (0.11/0.241). Note that the E400 job extracted 14 modes, but only 10 were used in the computation of results. When CAESAR II was instructed to extract 14 modes, the Included Mass report matched the E400 results for 14 modes. Since the results shown below were obtained by internally fixing CAESAR IIs ZPA value to 0.11, users will obtain different dynamic restraint loads from those shown below if they rerun the job.
6-44
General Benchmarks
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name: 320571 (E400 Job ) STATIC THERMAL DISPLACEMENTS (in)
DX NODE CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II DY E400 CAESAR II DZ E400
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 22 25 29
.0002 .0008 -.0976 -.2113 -.2362 -.2473 -.2282 -.1370 -.0843 -.0029 .0 .2365 .1343 .0
.000 .001 -.098 -.211 -.236 -.247 -.228 -.137 -.084 -.003 .0 .236 .134 .0
-.0911 -.1333 -.1317 -.1205 -.0715 .0 .0716 .1296 .1484 .1489 .0535 -.0652 .1092 .0295
-.091 -.133 -.132 -.120 -.071 .0 .072 .130 .148 .149 .053 -.065 .109 .021
-.0052 -.0132 -.0545 -.1096 -.0308 .0727 .1798 .2519 .1554 .0245 .0013 -.0284 .2541 .0014
-.005 -.013 -.054 -.110 -.031 .073 .180 .252 .155 .024 .001 -.028 .254 .001
6-45
STATIC THERMAL RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX NODE CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II FY E400 CAESAR II FZ E400
1 7 12 14 23 28 30
0. 0. 0. 77. 0. 0. -77.
0. 0. 0. 77. 0. 0. -76.
337. 38. 0. -201. -5. 0. -170.
337. 38. 0. -201. -5. 0. -170.
2032. 0. 0. 1018. 0. 0. 1014.
2030. 0. 0. 1017. 0. 0. 1013.
STATIC THERMAL RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX NODE CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II MY E400 CAESAR II MZ E400
1 14 30
7905. 6916. 7056.
7894 6911. 7048
-51. 6808. -6775.
-51. 6802. 6768.
252. 310. -63.
252. 310. 63.
STATIC THERMAL CODE STRESSES (psi)

NODE CAESAR II E400 NODE E400 CAESAR II
1 3 5 7 9 13
1782. 17401. 2082. 770. 2811. 1965.
1780. 17384. 2081. 770. 2809. 1963.
20 21 23 25 28 30
1225. 2000. 768. 2714. 1540. 2204.
1223. 1999. 767. 2712. 1539. 2202.
6-46
General Benchmarks
NATURAL FREQUENCIES (hz)

MODE CAESAR II E400
% MASS INCLUDED
DIRECTION CAESAR II E400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4.194 5.553 5.766 7.093 9.093 9.439 10.231 12.737 15.013 15.261
4.196 5.555 5.768 7.098 9.100 9.446 10.24 12.75 15.02 15.27
X Y Z
55.82 40.73 59.98
55.83 42.49 61.73
DYNAMIC DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DY (in) NODE CAESAR II E400 RX (deg) CAESAR II E400 RX (deg) CAESAR II E400
3 9 10 13 23 25 29
.0201 .0453 .0452 .0015 .0631 .0453 .0015
.020 .045 .045 .002 .063 .045 .002
.0001 .0958 .0559 0. 0. .0958 0.
0. .096 .056 0. 0. .096 0.
.0313 .1534 .1030 .0013 .1686 .1534 .0013
.031 .153 .103 .001 .168 .153 .001
6-47
DYNAMIC RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX NODE CAESAR II .11g E400 FY CAESAR II .11g E400 CAESAR II .11g FZ E400
1 7 14 23 30
900.
898
720. 652.
719. 651. 475. 651. 475.
2921.
2916.
954.
953.
476. 652.
836.
835.
954.
953.
476.
836.
835.
6-48
General Benchmarks
CAEPIPE Benchmarks
This section includes two CAEPIPE benchmark jobs. This job is a comparison between CAESAR II and CAEPIPE. This job is the sample problem found in the CAEPIPE Users manual. The CAESAR II job name is KPIP1. Note that this job requires setting the USE_PD/4t directive to YES in the configuration file. This job also required adjusting the standard material property values.
CAESAR II BENCHMARK JOB Name:KPIP1 OPERATING DISPLACEMENTS (in)

DX Node CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II DY CAEPIPE CAESAR II DZ CAEPIPE
18/20A 30 38/40A 60 70
.3606 -.6027 -.6309 -.3471 -.2556
.361 -.601 -.630 *.346 -.256
.2145 .6007 .7889 .4446 .2949
.214 .600 .788 .447 .296
-.3938 -.0550 .1502 .1273 .0962
-.393 -.055 .150 .132 .101
OPERATING ROTATIONS (deg)

RX Node CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II RY CAEPIPE CAESAR II RZ CAEPIPE
18/20A 30 38/40A 60 70
-.1908 -.2579 -.1031 -.1296 -.1282
-.191 -.258 -.103 -.134 -.256
.0589 -.4408 .1943 .0727 .0751
.059 -.440 .194 .064 .082
.2045 .2529 .5241 -.3566 -.3575
.204 .253 .523 -.353 -.360
OPERATING RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

FX Node CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II FY CAEPIPE CAESAR II FZ CAEPIPE
10
-27088.
-27006.
1382.
1374.
-13050.
-13017.
6-49
30 50 80
0. -16802. 43890.
0. -16765. 43772.
-1246. -4052. 1573.
-1241. -4041. 1575.
0. 11883. 1167.
0. 11853. 1164.
OPERATING RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

MX Node CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II MY CAEPIPE CAESAR II MZ CAEPIPE
10 30 50 80
-6559. 0. 45581. -1564.
-6552. 0. 45453. -1509.
54833. 0. 12549. 4693.
54700. 0. 12509. 4799.
15347. 0. 84239. -10585.
15300. 0. 84071.
-10585.
SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS (in)

18/20A 30 38/40A 60 70
.0000 .0000 .0015 .0000 .0000
.000 .000 .002 .000 .000
-.0082 .0046 .0016 -.0118 -.0117
-.008 .005 .002 -.013 -.013
.0020 .0022 .0022 .0010 .0006
.002 .002 .002 .001 .001

18/20A 30 38/40A 60 70
-.0105 -.0038 .0059 -.0019 -.0019
-.011 -.004 .006 -.002 -.002
-.0015 .0011 .0016 .0009 .0009
-.002 .001 .002 .001 .001
-.0058 -.0114 -.0061 .0000 .0006
-.006 -.012 -.006 -.002 .002
6-50
General Benchmarks
6-51

10 30 50 80
-13. 0. -40. 52.
-13. 0. -40. 53.
-382. -1401. -192. -368.
-381. -1396. -192. -364.
26. 0. -27. 1.
26. 0. -27. 1.

10 30 50 80
-362. 0. 123. -23.
-363. 0. 123. -22.
-171. 0. 102. 18.
-171. 0. 103. 17.
-1108. 0. -86. 917.
-1107. 0. -87. 932.
SUSTAINED STRESSES (psi)

CODE STRESS ELEMENT CAESAR II CAEPIPE ALLOWABLE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II SIFS CAEPIPE
10/10 18/20A
1410. 911.
1410. 912.
17300. 17300.
17300. 17300.
1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00
18/20A 20/20B
935. 1001.
938. 1001.
17300. 17300.
17300. 17300.
1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46 1.751/1.459 1.75/1.46
38/40A 40/40B
888. 1085.
888. 1086.
17300. 17300.
17300. 17300.
1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11 1.333/1.110 1.33/1.11
6-52
General Benchmarks
CODE STRESS ELEMENT CAESAR II CAEPIPE
ALLOWABLE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II
SIFS CAEPIPE
70 80
2164. 2470.
2105. 2490.
17300. 17300.
17300. 17300.
1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00 1.000/1.000 1.00/1.00
EXPANSION STRESSES (psi)

CODE STRESS ELEMENT CAESAR II CAEPIPE ALLOWABLE CAESAR II CAEPIPE SIFS CAESAR II CAEPIPE
10/10 18/20A
28268. 24496.
28198. 24434.
29325. 29325.
29325. 29325.
1.000/1.000 1.000/1.000
1.00/1.00 1.00/1.00
18/20A 20/20B
42656. 30681.
42548. 30615.
29325. 29325.
29325. 29325.
1.751/1.459 1.751/1.459
1.75/1.46 1.75/1.46
38/40A 40/40B
16875. 9416.
16841. 9402.
29325. 29325.
29325. 29325.
1.333/1.110 1.333/1.110
1.33/1.11 1.33/1.11
70 80
3939. 17673.
3746. 17793.
29325. 29325.
29325. 29325.
1.000/1.000 1.000/1.000
1.00/1.00 1.00/1.00
6-53
SPRING HANGER DESIGN

SOFTWARE HANGER SIZE SPRING RATE (lb/in) VERTICAL MOVE (in) HOT LOAD (lb) HORIZONTAL MOVE (in) COLD LOAD (lb)
CAESAR II CAEPIPE
Grinnell B-268 10 Grinnell B-268 10
260. 260.
.601 .600
1246. 1241.
.605 .604
1402. 1397.
6-54
General Benchmarks
This job is a comparison between CAESAR II and Caepipe with a job designed to test compliance to B31.3 and B31.5. The fittings in this job have been selected so that both B31.3 and B31.5 produce the same values of SIFs and flexibility factors. The CAESAR II job name for this analysis is B315A.
Job B315A OPERATING DISPLACEMENTS (in)

20/20B 30 40/40B 50 60/60B 70
.1043 .1478 -.1275 .0 .3396 .4489
.104 .148 -.127 .0 .340 .449
-.0683 -.2006 -.2385 -.0126 -.1462 -.0091
-.068 -.201 -.239 -.013 -.146 -.009
.0339 -.0031 .1805 .4461 -.0595 .1488
.034 -.003 .181 .446 -.059 .149
OPERATING ROTATIONS (deg)

20/20B 30 40/40B 50 60/60B 70
.0143 .0345 .0277 .0277 .0380 .0380
.014 .034 .028 .028 .038 .038
-.0823 -.1657 -.1811 -.1811 -.1657 -.1657
-.082 -.166 -.181 -.181 -.166 -.166
-.0103 .0778 .1429 .1602 .1036 .1122
-.010 .078 .143 .160 .104 .112
OPERATING RESTRAINT LOADS (lb)

10 50
-112. 112.
-112. 112.
-625. -251.
-625. -251.
0. 0.
0. 0.
6-55
70
0.
0.
-182.
-182.
0.
0.
OPERATING RESTRAINT MOMENTS (ft-lb)

10 50 70
280. 0. 0.
281. 0. 0.
-896. 0. 0.
-896. 0. 0.
-2668. 0. 0.
-2667. 0. 0.
SUSTAINED DISPLACEMENTS (in)

20/20B 30 40/40B 50 60/60B 70
-.0081 -.0133 .0 .0 -.0214 -.0214
-.008 -.013 .0 .0 -.021 -.021
-.0714 -.0717 -.1273 -.0107 -.0374 -.0050
-.071 -.072 -.127 -.011 -.037 -.005
-.0036 -.0442 -.0459 -.0578 -.0459 -.0556
-.004 -.044 -.046 -.058 -.046 -.056

20/20B 30 40/40B 50 60/60B 70
.0204 .0331 .0349 .0349 .0255 .0255
.020 .033 .035 .035 .025 .025
.0056 .0077 .0081 .0081 .0077 .0077
.006 .008 .008 .008 .008 .008
-.0311 .0239 .0708 .0845 .0241 .0270
-.031 .024 .071 .085 .024 .027
6-56
General Benchmarks

10 50 70
3. - 3. 0.
3. - 3. 0.
-745. -213. -100.
-745. -213. -100.
0. 0. 0.
0. 0. 0.

10 50 70
176. 0. 0.
176. 0. 0.
22. 0. 0.
22. 0. 0.
-3346. 0. 0.
-3346. 0. 0.
SUSTAINED STRESSES (psi)

ELEMENT CODE STRESS CAESAR II CAEPIPE ALLOWABLE CAESAR II CAEPIPE CAESAR II SIFS CAEPIPE
20/20B 30 40/40B 60
3123. 2741. 1707. 650.
3123. 2741. 1707. 650.
17000. 17000. 17000. 17000.
17000. 17000. 17000. 17000.
2.244/1.870 3.011/3.682 2.407/2.005 1.000/1.000
2.24/1.87 3.01/3.68 2.41/2.01 1.00/1.00
EXPANSION STRESSES (psi)

ELEMENT CODE STRESS CAESAR II CAEPIPE ALLOWABLE CAESAR II CAEPIPE SIFS CAESAR II CAEPIPE
20/20B 30 40/40B
1334. 2510. 382.
1334. 2510. 382.
40627. 41009. 42042.
40627. 41009. 42043.
2.244/1.870 3.011/3.682 2.407/2.005
2.24/1.87 3.01/3.68 2.41/2.01
6-57
60
350.
350.
43100.
43100.
1.000/1.000
1.00/1.00
6-58
General Benchmarks
L- Bend Benchmark
This job is an example of the application of the flexibility method to a small L-Bend spool. This example was published by John Brock in Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning, in 1977. The Table below shows the results comparison between CAESAR II and the published example.
CAESAR II (Result ) Comparison to John Brock's Flexibility Analysis of L-Bend Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning 1977 Expansion Load Case Restraint Loads
NODE FX (lb) FY (lb) FZ (lb) MX (in lb) MY (in lb) MZ (in lb)
Paper CAESAR II
A 10
612.3 604.0
1597.6 1575.0
220.3 221.0
57042.0 57088.8
8077.0 8130.0
93466.0 92068.8
Paper CAESAR II
A 30
604.0 612.3
1575.0 1597.6
221.0 220.3
22359.6 22259.0
39503.0 39503.0
215047.2 218110.0
Element Moments
NODE MX (in lb) MY (in lb) MZ (in lb)
Paper CAESAR II
B 18
13448 13531
8077 8130
102530 101062
Paper CAESAR II
C 20
734 697
22259 22359
63118 62194
6-59
Code Stress at 30 (D)

(PSI )
Paper
13250
CAESAR II 13076
CH AP TER
Chapter 7 Stoomwezen Benchmarks

This chapter contains several jobs from the Stoomwezen series of piping benchmarks. Each of the three systems is presented twice, once for the "dead weight" case and once for the "thermal" case. The CAESAR II results are compared to the results from E400, a Stoomwezen approved piping program.
In This Chapter
Test Case I............................................................................. 7-2 Test Case II ........................................................................... 7-9 Test Case III .......................................................................... 7-18 Bend With Concentrated Loads ............................................ 7-25 Bend With Uniform Loads .................................................... 7-33
7-2
Test Case I
This benchmark consists of CAESAR II jobs STM06D and STM06T represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.
TEST CASE I - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM06D)
GENERAL NODE CROSS REFERENCE LIST

E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II
101 102 1 2 103 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
224 225 226 227 228 229 230 24
310 320 330 340 350 360 370 400
215 115 116 118 119 120 320 321
620 630 640 700 710 720 730 750
7-3
E400
CAESAR II
E400
CAESAR II
E400
CAESAR II
107 6 7 8 110 9 10 11 113 12 106 105 109 108 112 111 223
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 300
13 117 14 15 16 123 17 18 19 133 20 21 22 139 23 114 214
410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 600 610
122 124 125 126 26 29 127 27 128 28 129 130 131 132
760 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920
7-4
DISPLACEMENTS
NODES CAESAR II E400 DX (mm) CAESAR II E400 DY (mm) CAESAR II E400 DZ (mm) CAESAR II E400
30 70 110 150 400 440 480 520 410 490 60 140
1 4 7 10 24 15 18 21 13 19 3 9
.000 -.249 .000 .249 .000 -.066 .000 .066 .000 .000 -.237 .237
.0 -.2 .0 .2 .0 -.1 .0 .1 .0 .0 -.2 .2
-.724 -.724 -.724 -.724 -.151 -.151 -.151 -.151 -.155 -.155 -.727 -.727
-.7 -.7 -.7 -.7 -.2 -.2 -.2 -.2 -.2 -.2 -.7 -.7
.249 .000 -.249 .000 .066 .000 -.066 000 .064 -.064 .000 .000
.2 .0 -.2 .0 .1 .0 -.1 .0 .1 -.1 .0 .0
REACTIONS*
NODES CAESAR II E400 FX (N) CAESAR II E400 FY (N) CAESAR II E400 FZ (N) CAESAR II E400
10 190 210 230 640 760 990 920

*
101 106 109 112 116 122 138 132
0. 9953. 0. -9953. -232. -198. 539. -76416.
0. 9954. 0. -9954. -232. -198. 539. -76362.
-5580. -5580. -5580. -5580. -522 -722 -1262. 269819
-5581. -5580. -5581. -5580. -522. -722. -1262. 269603.
-9953 0 9953 0 0 0 0 -90690.
-9954 0 9954 0 0 0 0 -90621.
The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spr ing hangers. The s igns of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.
7-5
FORCES*
30 40 60 70 80 400 410 430 440
1 2 3 4 5 24 13 14 15
4811 5103 4977 -4977 -5103 9518 9226 9352 -9352
4811 5103 4977 -4977 -5103 9519 9227 9353 -9353
3796 4490 -3076 3796 4490 17129 13536 -15529 17129
3796 4491 -3076 3796 4491 17131 13537 -15532 17131
4977 5103 4811 4811 5103 9352 9226 9518 9518
497 510 481 481 5103 9353 9227 -9519 9519
* The FORCE report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the element as a free body diagram. The signs of the forces from E400 were reversed for comparisons. The nodes compared are the FROM nodes of the elements.
STRESS
NODES AXIAL STRESS (N./sq. mm.) CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 BENDING STRESS ** (N./sq. mm.) CAESAR II E400 CODE STRESS (N./sq. mm.) CAESAR II E400
40 60 80 100 430
2 3 5 6 14
0.18 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.13
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
5.90 5.67 5.90 5.67 7.28
5.9 5.7 5.9 5.7 7.3
7.44 6.71 7.44 6.71 7.54
7.4 6.7 7.4 6.7 7.5
Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from iM/Z. Some codes use 0.75i in the computation of the code stress. The .75 factor is applied in CAESAR II when the code stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II bending stress values were manually multiplied by 0.75.
7-6
TEST CASE I - EXPANSION CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM06T)
DISPLACEMENTS
NODES CAESAR II E400 DX (mm) CAESAR II E400 DY (mm) CAESAR II E400 DZ (mm) CAESAR II E400
30 70 110 150 400 440 480 520 730 740
1 4 7 10 24 15 18 21 320 321
.000 14.506 .000 -14.506 -.001 17.068 .000 -17.068 4.566 3.333
.0 14.5 .0 -14.5 .0 17.1 .0 -17.1 4.6 3.3
-9.026 -9.026 -9.026 -9.026 -34.503 -34.503 -34.503 -34.503 3.331 4.568
-9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -34.5 -34.5 -34.5 -34.5 3.3 4.6
-14.507 .000 14.507 .000 -17.068 .000 17.068 .000 .000 .000
-14.5 .0 14.5 .0 -17.1 .0 17.1 .0 .0 .0
REACTIONS
10 190 210 230 760 990 920 300 720
101 106 109 112 122 138 132 0 120
-2 730860 0 -730660 -928862 894253 -851601 0 -2553045
0 730893 0 -730893 -929066 894314 -851575 -403** -2553047
-975891 -975891 -975891 -975887 928596 821612 1127835 -903 47710
-975926 -975925 -975926 -975925 929112 821654 1127677 0 47216
-730860 0 730860 0 0 0 -715372 0 -7
-730893 0 730893 0 0 0 -715332 0 0
*The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison. ** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from reaction load ( -403 -500 = -903 ), then the loads can be compared.
7-7
FORCES*
30 40 60 70 80 400 410 430 440 730 740
1 2 3 4 5 24 13 14 15 320 321
-845013 -885632 365428 -365432 885632 -530513 -489892 -1740956 1740947 -928862 -928862
-845064 -885686 365446 -365447 885686 -530546 -489924 -1741057 1741056 929066 929066
488144 0 -488146 488146 0 -488135 8 488155 -488150 928596 928596
488164 0 -448164 488164 0 -488164 0 488164 -488164 929112 929112
365425 -885632 -845018 -845018 -885632 -1740947 -489889 -530508 -530502 0 0
365446 -88568 -845065 -845065 -885686 -1741056 -489924 -530545 -530545 0 0
* The FORCE report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the element as a free body diagram. The signs of the forces from E400 were reversed for comparison. The nodes compared are the FROM nodes of the elements.
STRESS
NODES CAESAR II E400 AXIAL STRESS (N./sq. mm) CAESAR II E400 BENDING STRESS (N./sq. mm) CODE STRESS (N./sq. mm) CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400
40 60 80 100 430 550 960 970 980 990
2 3 5 6 14 23 234F 235F 236F 138
-31.04 -29.61 -31.04 -29.61 -7.52 -7.51 -84.89 -86.83 -65.51 -65.51
-31.0 -29.6 -31.0 -29.6 -7.5 -7.5 -84.9 -86.8 -65.5 -65.5
1468.05 1423.42 1468.05 1423.42 433.46 433.45 240.61 779.62 149.13 800.89
1468.1 1423.5 1468.1 1423.5 433.5 433.5 240.6 779.7 149.1 800.9
1540.54 1448.75 1540.54 1448.75 451.32 451.31 240.61 779.62 149.13 800.89
1540.6 1448.8 1540.6 1448.8 451.3 451.3 240.6 779.7 149.1 800.9
7-8
NODES CAESAR II E400
AXIAL STRESS (N./sq. mm) CAESAR II E400
BENDING STRESS (N./sq. mm) CODE STRESS (N./sq. mm) CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400
730 740
320 321
-104.26 -104.29
-104.3 -104.3
182.52 182.52
182.9 183.0
182.52 182.52
182.9 183.0
7-9
Test Case II
This benchmark consists of the CAESAR II jobs STM07D and STM07T, which represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.
7-10
TEST CASE II - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM07D)
This job is modeled using an expansion joint for the special element, spanning nodes 240 and 250. This enables the diagonal of the 12x12 element matrix to be specified by the user. It is not possible to specify the cross terms of the matrix.

CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400
10 20 30 40 49 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 150
1 2 3 4 52 53 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
160 165 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
13 14 15 16 17 18 181 182 19 191 21 22 23
280 290 300 400 410 420 430 440 460 480 490 500
231 24 25 28 27 26 251 29 34 43 44 50
7-11
DISPLACEMENTS
NODE CAESAR II E400 DX (mm) CAESAR II E400 DY (mm) CAESAR II E400 DZ (mm) CAESAR II E400
19 20 60 89 90 150 165 220 250 280 300 460 480
2I 2F 6 9I 9F 12 14 182 21 231 25 34 43
-.267 -.551 -.329 .230 .362 .0 -.461 -.843 3.586 .0 -1.657 -1.027 -.514
-.3 -.6 -.3 .2 .4 .0 -.5 -.8 3.6 .0 -1.6 -1.0 -.5
1.313 1.585 .8 1.416 1.490 .795 .0 -9.139 -.318 -.099 -.306 .141 -.138
1.3 1.6 .8 1.4 1.5 .8 .0 -9.1 -.3 -.1 -.3 .2 -.1
.192 .250 -.969 -1.186 -.828 -1.707 -2.448 -.459 4.926 3.815 3.393 .993 .260
.2 .2 -1.0 -1.2 -.8 -1.7 -2.5 -.5 4.9 3.8 3.4 1.0 .3
REACTIONS*
NODE CAESAR II E400 FX (N) CAESAR II E400 FY (N) CAESAR II E400 FZ (N) CAESAR II E400
10 49 110 150 165 270 280 400
1 52 11 12 14 23 231 28
3297 0 912 -4996 0 0 -10725 13010
3281 0 904 -4966 0 0 -10666 13037
642 -6833 -6170 0 2075 322 0 2334
629 67** -6164 0 2090 348 0 2313
-385 0 641 0 0 0 0 -1396
-385 0 628 0 0 0 0 -1392
7-12
NODE CAESAR II E400
FX (N) CAESAR II E400
FY (N) CAESAR II E400
FZ (N) CAESAR II E400
440 500
29 50
0 -2039
0 2131
-8372 -3506
28** -3467
0 1396
0 1392
* The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison. ** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from these values, the CAESAR II loads will be obtained. ( 67-6900= -6833, 28-8400= -8372 )
7-13
ELEMENT FORCES
10 19 50 100 180 210 270 410 440 480
1 2I 53 10F 16F 181 23 27I 29 43
-3297 -3297 -3297 912 245 245 -245 -13010 -2039 -2039
-3281 -3281 -3281 904 240 240 -240 -13037 -2131 -2131
-642 -1623 2910 -5189 899 379 615 -3035 988 -2192
-629 -1610 2919 -5183 886 367 598 -3013 1001 -2153
385 385 385 641 0 0 0 1396 1396 1396
385 385 385 628 0 0 0 1392 1392 1397
ELEMENT MOMENTS
NODE CAESAR II E400 MX (N-M) CAESAR II E400 MY (N-M) CAESAR II E400 MZ (N-M) CAESAR II E400
10 19 50 100 180 210 270 410 440 480
1 2I 53 10F 16F 181 23 27I 29 43
-1501 -23 454 -1592 347 -228 -28 2344 -4028 -4516
-1479 -19 452 -1601 340 -225 -25 2345 4007 -4592
4422 -9.1 -1001 300 -197 19 -460 -3269 7653 -268
4396 -12 -998 299 -194 18 -450 -3291 7685 217
4707 4338 105 -280 -629 119 -63 -881 3637 -1320
4708 4336 110 279 -624 110 -57 -891 3647 -1402
7-14
ELEMENT STRESSES
NODE CAESAR II E400 AXIAL (MPA) CAESAR II E400 BENDING (MPA) CAESAR II E400 CODE (MPA) CAESAR II E400
10 19 50 100 180 210 270 410 440 480
1 2I 53 10F 16F 181 23 27I 29 43
0.29 0.32 0.5 0.2 0. 0. 0. -1.34 -0.2 0.13
.3 .3 .5 .2 0. 0. 0. -1.3 -0.2 .1
9.51 5.85 2.8 4.5 4.67 1.1 2.14 10.1 9.1 3.2
9.5 5.9 3.8 4.5 4.6 1.1 2.1 10.2 9.2 3.3
15.5 12.1 3.1 4.6 8.72 1.6 2.8 10.8 13.5 4.5
15.4 12.1 3.1 4.6 8.6 1.6 2.8 10.8 13.5 4.5
* Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from iM/Z. Some codes use 0.75i in the computation of the code stress. The .75 factor is applied in CAESAR II when the code stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II bending stress values were manually multiplied by 0.75.
TEST CASE II - THERMAL EXPANSION CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM07T)
DISPLACEMENTS
19 20 60 89 90 150 165 220 250 280
2I 2F 6 9I 9F 12 14 182 21 231
-6.917 -22.691 20.211 58.870 54.582 0. -50.981 -75.564 30.214 0.
-6.8 -22.6 20.2 58.8 54.5 0. -50.8 -75.0 30.0 0.
-17.381 -19.978 1.946 -4.878 -16.304 16.694 0. -171.287 35.212 -6.025
-17.3 -20.0 1.9 -4.8 -16.2 16.7 0. -171.8 35.8 -6.1
-35.746 -73.175 -112.746 -56.4 -40.094 -131.648 -148.968 -131.362 86.104 63.308
-35.7 -72.9 -112.5 -56.4 -40.2 -131.5 -148.9 -131.7 86.1 63.5
7-15
NODE CAESAR II E400
DX (mm) CAESAR II E400
DY (mm) CAESAR II E400
DZ (mm) CAESAR II E400
300 460 480
25 34 43
-7.284 -31.969 -22.354
-7.0 -31.5 -22.8
-7.082 16.704 16.621
-7.2 16.6 16.7
49.892 51.641 27.084
50.0 51.4 27.2
REACTIONS*
10 49 110 150 165 270 280 400 440 500
1 52 11 12 14 23 231 28 29 50
-150100 0 80128 51962 0 0 49517 189543 0 -232876
-149282 0 79948 51839 0 0 54936 191320 0 -240065
-178490 343 -90672 0 271814 -111879 0 57031 -657 52397
-177931 240** -90431 0 271006 -113386 0 56528 277** 54421
10338 0 2840 0 0 0 0 23148 0 -23167
10288 0 2893 0 0 0 0 23083 0 -23102
* The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison. ** E400 apparently removes the hanger preloads from the REACTION report. If the E400 preload is subtracted from these values, the CAESAR II loads will be obtained. ( 240+100=340, -277-400=-677 )
ELEMENT FORCES
10 19 50 100 180
1 2I 53 10F 16F
150123 150123 150123 80281 6299
149282 149282 149282 79948 6191
178588 178588 178247 -90579 -3167
177931 177931 177951 -90431 -3113
-10370 -10370 -10370 2812 -19
-10288 -10288 -10288 2893 -19
7-16
NODE CAESAR II E400
FX (N) CAESAR II E400
FY (N) CAESAR II E400
FZ (N) CAESAR II E400
210 270 410 440 480
181 23 27I 29 43
6299 6299 189394 -232884 -232884
6191 6191 -191320 -240065 -240065
-3167 108766 -57013 52409 52409
-3113 110273 -56528 54421 54421
-19 -19 -23149 -23168 -23168
-19 -19 -23083 23102 23102
7-17
ELEMENT MOMENTS
10 19 50 100 180 210 270 410 440 480
1 2I 53 10F 16F 181 23 27I 29 43
317186 65982 8898 -49118 1416 4228 9918 21954 -39379 -51285
316110 65817 8919 -48965 1579 4343 9937 21463 -38960 -50590
-231308 -24434 31953 -35339 -13995 -8401 2917 -130380 181259 61556
230051 -24321 31803 -35156 -13853 -8355 2769 -131351 -184250 67545
22823 -51060 -34371 -54842 40 23 40 21127 18833 -132281
22769 -50945 -34372 -54743 7 -10 2 20922 18400 -135672
ELEMENT STRESSES
10 19 50 100 180 210 270 410 440 480
1 2I 23 19F 16F 181 23 27I 29 43
-17 -17 -23 1.92 -.01 -.01 -.01 -20 -23 -2.1
-17.0 -17.0 -22.4 1.9 .0 .0 .0 -20.0 -24.0 -20
903 202 175 296 219.51 58.35 64 465 262 75.81
899.7 201.0 174.5 295.2 217.6 58.4 64.0 467.3 266.0 79.8
917 324 178 304 219.51 58.35 64 467 268 146
913.5 323.0 177.6 303.3 217.6 58.4 58.4 469.6 271.8 151.2
7-18
Test Case III

This benchmark consists of the CAESAR II jobs STM08D and STM08T, which represent the dead weight and thermal cases respectively. A figure of the system geometry is shown below, followed by the results comparison.
TEST CASE III - DEAD WEIGHT CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM08D)

CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II E400
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
12 11 10 9 8 7 6
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
150 160 170 180 200 210 220 230
20 21 22 23 4 3 2 1
7-19
DISPLACEMENTS
20 30 50 60 70 90
11I 10I 8I 7 6 14F 17
-6.240 -73.892 -12.156 -12.169 -12.170 -10.519 .0 -5.723 -38.386 15.031 5.640 .001
-6.2 -74.0 -12.1 -12.2 -12.2 -10.5 .0 -5.7 -38.4 14.8 5.5 .0
-18.278 -230.485 -438.134 -441.015 -439.266 -403.757 -344.548 323.019 -63.913 -51.821 -7.716 -.006
-18.3 -230.5 -438.1 -441.0 -439.3 -403.8 -344.6 -323.1 -64.0 -51.4 -7.6 -.0
3.563 6.144 3.070 .273 1.252 17.709 13.187 15.465 5.560 -3.252 -6.573 .000
3.6 6.1 3.1 0.3 1.3 17.7 13.8 15.4 5.6 -3.2 -6.5 .0
140 160 200 210 220
19F 21F 4I 3I 2I
REACTIONS*
10 60 120 180 230
12 7 17 23 1
-2928 0 -15304 18405 -172
-2928 0 -15206 18303 -170
-5202 0 0 -46184 -3572
-5201 0 0 -46187 -3565
-1964 1364 0 -884 1485
-1964 1377 0 -885 1472
* The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.
7-20
ELEMENT FORCES
NODE CAESAR II E400 CAESAR II FX (N) E400 FY (N) CAESAR II E400 FZ (N) CAESAR II E400
230 219 200 70-199 70-60 29 99 120 180
1 2F 4I 6-5F 6-7 10F 15I 17 23
172 -172 -172 -172 -2928 2928 -3100 -3100 -18405
170 -170 -170 -170 -2928 2928 -3098 -3098 -18303
3572 -3391 -2552 2136 -2614 4452 3512 4857 46184
3565 -3394 -2554 2134 -2613 4451 3511 4857 46187
-1485 1485 1485 1485 -601 1964 884 884 884
-1472 1472 1472 1472 -587 1964 885 885 885
ELEMENT MOMENTS
230 219 200 70-199 70-60 29 99 120 180
1 2F 4I 6-5F 6-7 10F 15I 17 23
9988 -8004 -5991 -3205 -183 -3270 -2916 -4862 19241
9892 -8084 -6018 -3193 -185 -3268 -2907 -4855 19248
1935 -2052 1011 -920 6194 5264 -1893 -3348 -4043
1932 -2041 997 -904 6187 5264 -1894 -3351 -4045
6601 -6646 -641 1544 -9870 -6590 6109 6078 67322
6618 -6663 -650 153? -9865 -658? 610? 6076 67487
? - Denotes digits not readable from the E400 output due to copying
7-21
ELEMENT STRESSES
NODE CAESAR II E400 AXIAL (MPA) CAESAR II E400 BENDING (MPA)* CAESAR II E400 CODE (MPA) CAESAR II E400
20 30 39 50 70-60 70-79 99 140 180 209 220
11I 10I 9F 8I 6-7 6-13I 15I 19F 23 3F 2I
.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 -0.5 8.7 -0.1 -0.5
.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 .6 .6 .6 -.5 8.7 -.1 -.5
193.5 98.7 118.7 40.2 171.6 145.1 14.2 357.5 155.3 31.0 72.9
193.5 98.7 118.6 40.2 171.5 145.2 14.2 357.4 155.6 31.1 73.3
214.2 128.6 144.5 53.6 171.6 153.5 20.8 420.6 207.4 53.5 87.4
214.2 128.6 144.4 53.6 171.5 153.5 20.8 420.6 207.8 53.7 87.7
* Bending stresses in CAESAR II as reported in the stress report are computed from iM/Z. Some codes use 0.75i in the computation of the code stress. The .75 factor is applied in CAESAR II when the code stress is computed, but it is not included in the bending stress value. For this comparison, the CAESAR II Bending Stress values were manually multiplied by 0.75.
7-22
DISPLACEMENTS
NODE CAESAR II
TEST CASE III - THERMAL CASE (CAESAR II JOB STM08T)
DX (mm) E400 CAESAR II E400
DY (mm) CAESAR II E400
DZ (mm) CAESAR II E400
20 30 50 60 70 90 120 140 160 200 210 220
11I 10I 8I 7 6 14F 17 19F 21F 4I 3I 2I
1.800 64.594 82.448 71.737 68.538 36.046 .0 -9.978 -15.722 47.047 13.860 .006
1.8 64.6 82.4 71.7 68.5 36.0 .0 -9.9 -15.7 46.8 13.6 .0
-.187 -7.056 -63.193 -66.224 -65.899 55.728 -27.955 -31.294 -31.169 15.074 13.488 .004
-.2 -7.1 -63.2 -66.2 -65.9 -55.7 -27.9 -31.2 -31.0 14.7 13.3 .0
-7.082 -38.735 -.992 -2.776 -3.985 -17.794 -55.731 -47.937 -4.409 85.253 -.831 -.287
-7.1 -38.7 -1.0 -2.8 -4.0 -17.7 -55.5 -47.8 -4.4 85.2 -.7 .0
REACTIONS*
10 60 120 180 230
12 7 17 23 1
2497 0 96796 -97972 -1322
2497 0 96360 -97536 -1320
516 0 0 -282 -234
515 0 0 -283 -232
1176 -13882 0 857 11848
1176 -13905 0 854 11875
* The REACTION report in CAESAR II shows the loads acting ON the restrained node, which include the pre-load of spring hangers. The signs of the loads from E400 were reversed for comparison.
7-23
ELEMENT FORCES
230 219 200 70-199 70-60 29 99 120 180
1 2F 4I 6-5F 6-7 10F 15I 17 23
1322 1322 1322 1322 2497 2497 1175 -97972 97972
1320 1320 1320 1320 2497 2497 1176 -97536 97536
234 234 234 234 516 516 282 -282 282
232 232 232 232 515 515 283 -283 283
-11848 -11848 -11848 -11848 -12705 1176 -857 857 -857
-11875 -11875 -11875 -11875 -12729 1176 -853 853 -853
ELEMENT MOMENTS
230 219 200 70-199 70-60 29 99 120 180
1 2F 4I 6-5F 6-7 10F 15I 17 23
-12200 -9236 4543 -107 1645 -1692 1651 -3537 4775
-12276 9295 4519 -115 1648 -1690 1647 -3525 4758
18043 18944 -5553 -8870 3630 3514 2441 -54882 3015
-18197 -19043 -5553 -8855 3642 -3515 2430 -54579 3001
-1757 -1409 -355 565 -3333 757 -84 -28290 152632
-1763 -1415 -359 568 3337 758 -79 -2815? 15195?
? - Denotes digits not readable from the E400 output due to copying
7-24
ELEMENT STRESSES
20 30 39 50 70-60 70-79 99 140 180 209 220
11I 10I 9F 8I 6-7 6-13I 15I 19F 23 3F 2I
-.5 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -.5 -.2 -.2 -14.0 .1 -.4 -3.9
-.5 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -.5 -.2 -.2 -13.9 .1 -.4 -3.9
94. 82.5 51.1 84.1 96.8 116.4 7.2 196.1 451.5 95.6 212.0
94. 82.6 51.1 84.1 97.0 115.9 7.2 195.3 449.5 96.3 213.2
95. 90.6 63.3 89.5 102.0 120.2 8.7 202.1 451.6 105.3 213.8
95. 90.6 63.2 89.6 102.2 119.7 8.7 201.2 449.6 105.8 213.8
7-25
Bend With Concentrated Loads

JOB: STM04 consists of various concentrated loadings on a bend element. The model is shown in the figure below. This model consists of a single bend with a radius of 10 meters, with an applied flexibility factor of 2.0. The model is anchored at node 3. A standard CAESAR II Version 4.40 configuration file is used with this job, except the BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT factor is set to 0.01.
The analysis consists of separate load cases applying FX, FY, and FZ loads of 10 N, as well as applying MX, MY, and MZ moments of 1000 N-M. The results for these various loading conditions are shown in the tables below. The node number correlation between the CAESAR II model and the benchmark model (E400SW) is:
CAESAR II E400SW
3 2 1
1 M 2
7-26
Load Case 1: FX Displacements (mm):

X Node CAESAR II E400SW CAESAR II Y E400SW CAESAR II Z E400SW
1/2
25.8
25.8
16.4
16.4
0.
0.
Rotations (deg):
1/2
0.1883
0.1891
Restraint Forces (N):

3/1
10.
10.
Restraint Moments (N-M):

3/1
100
100
Code Stress Value (MPA):

Node CAESAR II E400SW
1/2
1.7
1.7
7-27
Load Case 2: FY Displacements (mm):

1/2
16.4
16.4
11.7
11.7
0.
0.
Rotations (deg):
1/2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1075
0.1089

3/1
10
10

3/1
100
100

1/2
1.7
1.7
7-28
Load Case 3: FZ Displacements (mm):

1/2
33.4
33.4
Rotations (deg):
1/2
-0.1554
-0.1547
-0.1216
-0.1203

3/1
10
10

3/1
-100
-100
-100
-100

1/2
2.44
2.4
7-29
Load Case 4: MX Displacements (mm):

1/2
-271.1
-271.1
Rotations (deg):
1/2
2.44
2.44
0.3295
0.3323

3/1

3/1
1000
1000

1/2
17.25
17.3
7-30
Load Case 5: MY Displacements (mm):

1/2
-212.3
-212.3
Rotations (deg):
1/2
0.3295
0.3323
2.44
2.44

3/1

3/1
1000
1000

1/2
17.25
17.3
7-31
Load Case 6: MZ Displacements (mm):

1/2
328.6
328.6
187.6
187.6
Rotations (deg):
1/2
2.9578
2.9564

3/1

3/1
1000
1000

1/2
17.25
17.3
7-32
Load Case 7: FX+FY+FZ+MX+MY+MZ Displacements (mm):

1/2
370.9
370.9
215.7
215.7
-450
-450
Rotations (deg):
1/2
2.6144
2.6127
2.6481
2.6471
3.2535
3.2544

3/1
10
10
10
10
10
10

3/1
900
900
900
900
1200
1200

1/2
30.18
30.2
7-33
Bend With Uniform Loads

JOB: STM05A This job consists of various uniform loadings on a bend element. The model is shown in the figure below. This model consists of a single bend with a radius of 10 meters, with an applied flexibility factor of 2.0. The model is anchored at node 3. A standard CAESAR II Version 4.40 configuration file is used with this job, except the BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT factor is set to 0.01.
The analysis consists of separate load cases applying UX, UY, and UZ loads of -1 N/mm. The results for these various loading conditions are shown in the tables below. The node number correlation between the CAESAR II model and the benchmark model (E400SW) is:
CAESAR II E400SW
3 2 1
1 M 2
7-34
Load Case 1: UX DISPLACEMENTS (mm):

1/2
-12057.0
-12055.9
-8253.2
-8252.1
0.
0.
Rotations (deg):
1/2
-80.82
-80.82

3/1
-15710.
-15708.

3/1
-57082
-57080

1/2
984.8
984.8
7-35
Load Case 2: UY Displacements (mm):

1/2
-12907.0
-12905.2
-9731.5
-9729.8
0.
0.
Rotations (deg):
1/2
-80.82
-80.82

3/1
-15710
-15708

3/1
-100020
-100000

1/2
1725.3
1725.3
7-36
Load Case 3: UZ Displacements (mm):

1/2
-19914.9
-19911.8
Rotations (deg):
1/2
66.68
66.69
85.49
85.48

3/1
-15710
-15708

3/1
57082
57080
100020
100000
-100020
-100000

1/2
1986.6
1986.5
CH AP TER
Chapter 8 Structural Benchmarks

The following sheets describe a variety of structural jobs from various sources. All of these jobs are stand alone structural jobs, no piping is involved. Any special settings of the CAESAR II configuration file are noted in the specific input files as applicable.
In This Chapter
ANSYS Truss Job ................................................................. 8-2 3D Beams & Columns .......................................................... 8-4 Portal Frame .......................................................................... 8-6 Truss Analysis # 1 ................................................................. 8-7 Truss Analysis #2 .................................................................. 8-9 Loaded Beam ........................................................................ 8-10 Plane Frame........................................................................... 8-11 Simple Plane Frame .............................................................. 8-12 Space Frame .......................................................................... 8-13 Simple Truss Plane................................................................ 8-15 Plane Truss ............................................................................ 8-17
8-2
ANSYS Truss Job

This job compares the results between CAESAR II, ANSYS, and a published reference for a small plane truss structure. The CAESAR II job name is AN50-2. This job and its solution can be found in Vector Mechanics for Engineers, by Beer and Johnston. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.
DISPLACEMENTS (in)
NODE DX (mm) CAESAR II ANSYS DY (mm) CAESAR II ANSYS
1 2 3 4 5
.0121 .0097 -.0054 -.0042 .0
.0212 .00972 -.00540 -.00420 .0
.0279 .0 -.0431 -0.136 .0
-.02789 .0 -.04312 -0.1357 .0
ELEMENT FORCES (lb)

AXIAL FORCE ELEMENT CAESAR II ANSYS REFERENCE
1,2 1.3 1,4 2,4 2,5 3,4
-3000 -2500 2500 -3750 -8750 1500
-3000 -2500 2500 -3750 -8750 1500
-3000 -2500 2500 -3750 -8750 1500
8-3
4,5
5250
5250
5250
8-4
3D Beams & Columns

This job is a small 3D model consisting of beams and columns under uniform load. Results are presented from CAESAR II, ANSYS, and the reference publication. This job can be found in Computer Methods of Structural Analysis, by Beaufait, Rowan, Hoadley, and Hackett. The CAESAR II job name is BMCOLS. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.
Only selected results are presented in the reference publication, so only these same items are compared here.
Y Deflection (in) at Node 6:

CAESAR II ANSYS Reference -.0038 -.00385 -.00115 (this is an error in the book)
RY Rotation (deg) at Node 6:

CAESAR II ANSYS Reference 0.0 0.0 0.0
8-5
Axial Force (lb) in Element 3-6:

CAESAR II ANSYS Reference 1047 935 1070
MY Restraint Load (ft-lb) at Node 3:

CAESAR II ANSYS Reference 170958 200900 169000
8-6
Portal Frame
This job is a small portal frame model under concentrated loads. Results are presented from CAESAR II and the reference publication. This job can be found in Computer Methods of Structural Analysis, by Beaufait, Rowan, Hoadley, and Hackett. The CAESAR II job name is PLNFRM. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.
X Deflection (in) at Node 10:

CAESAR II Reference 1.3970 1.39
X Deflection (in) at Node 15:

CAESAR II Reference 2.2974 2.28
8-7
Truss Analysis # 1
This job is a small plane truss model under concentrated loads. Results are presented from CAESAR II and the reference publication. This job can be found in Structural Analysis, by J. C. McCormac. The CAESAR II job name is TRUSS. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.
ELEMENT FORCES (lb)

ELEMENT AXIAL FORCE CAESAR II REFERENCE
5,10 10,15 15,20 20,25 5,30 30,35 35,40 40,25 10,30 30,15 15,40 40,20 15,35
15023 15023 40023 40023 -19239 -7453 -7453 -51255 30000 -28784 -60800 30000 0
15000 15000 40000 40000 -19200 -7500 -7500 -51200 30000 -28800 -60800 30000 0
8-8
8-9
Truss Analysis #2
This job is a small plane truss model under uniform load. Results are presented from CAESAR II, STAAD III, and the reference publication. This job can be found in Resistance des Materiaux, by M. Laredo. The CAESAR II job name is SSLL. The model geometry is shown in the figure below.
Y Deflection (MM) at Node 2:

CAESAR II STAAD III Reference -.5489 -.5428 -.5428
MZ Moment (N-m) at Node 7:

CAESAR II STAAD III Reference 48448 49249 49249
Axial Force (N) in Element 5-6

CAESAR II STAAD III Reference 585915 584584 548584
8-10
Loaded Beam
This job analyzes a fixed-fixed beam, with an intermediate support. This job is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 1.9 from this text.
Deflections (Inches):
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II Text
20 0. 0.
CAESAR II
-.5161
Text
-.5161
CAESAR II Text
0. 0.
Deflections (degrees):
Node RX RY RZ
CAESAR II
20 0.
Text
0.
CAESAR II
0.
Text
0.
CAESAR II Text
.6438 .636
Restraint Loads (lb, ft-lb):

Node FY MZ
CAESAR II Text
10 40 -72935 -3452. -72850. -3530.
CAESAR II
-127866 15413
Text
-127633 15633
8-11
Plane Frame
This job analyzes a Plane Frame, with various loads. This job is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 3.4 from this text.
Deflections (cm, degrees):

Node DX DZ RY
CAESAR II Text
2 3 5 6 .2317 .4166 .2262 .3544 .2317 .4167 .2262 .3545
CAESAR II
-.0197 -.0237 -.0373 -.0464
Text
-.01971 -.0237 -.0373 -.0464
CAESAR II Text
.1336 .0356 -.0893 -.0177 .1337 .0356 -.0893 -.0177
Restraint Loads (N, N-M):

Node FX FZ MY
CAESAR II Text
10 40 24209. 115791. 24208.
CAESAR II Text
-135362.
CAESAR II Text
-49853 114149.
-135358. -49826 -344642 114171
115792. -344637
8-12
Simple Plane Frame

This job analyzes a simple plane frame. This job is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 3.1 from this text.
Deflections (inches):
Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II Text
20 .0153. .0153.
CAESAR II
-.0378
Text
-.0378
CAESAR II Text
0. 0.
Deflections (degrees):
Node RX RY RZ
CAESAR II
20 0.
Text
0.
CAESAR II
0.
Text
0.
CAESAR II Text
-.0378 -.0378

Node FX FY MZ
CAESAR II Text
10 40 -76778. 76778. -76792. 76780.
CAESAR II
-160928. -59072
Text
-160928. 59070
CAESAR II Text
-67801 -194319 -67794 -194322
8-13
Space Frame
This job analyzes a Space Frame, with various loads. This job is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, by Mario Paz and William Leigh. This particular job is Example 5.2 from this text.
Deflections (in, degrees):

Node DX DY DZ
CAESAR II Text
2 3 5 6 11 12 .0464 .1035 -.0489 -.0997 -.0464 -.1035 .0591 .1266 -.0614 -.1230 -.0591 -.1266
CAESAR II Text
-.9026 -1.4096 -.9073 -1.4170 .9083 1.4153 -.9291
CAESAR II
-.0190
Text
-.0190 -.0277 -.00137 -.0213 -.0190 -.0277
-1.4566 -.0277 -.9339 -.0137
-1.4639 -.0213 9348 -.0190
1.4622 -.0277

Node FX FZ
CAESAR II Text
1 4 7 10 6486 -18626 18626 -6811 6811 -18577 -18577 -6811
CAESAR II Text
-167687 -120312 -120312 -167687 -167507. -120493 -12453 -167507.
8-14
Local Element Forces (lb):

CAESAR II Axial Force
Element Nodes
1 4 5 8 9 14 1-2 5-6 7-8 11-12 2-8 3-6
CAESAR II Text
-167687 -67446 -120312 -76554 10883 -32364 -167510 -67510 -120490 -76490 9860 -32250
8-15
Simple Truss Plane

This job analyzes a simple Plane Truss, with various loads and is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, Example 6.1 by Mario Paz and William Leigh.

Node DX DY
CAESAR II
3 2 .0161 .0033
Text
.01611 .00333
CAESAR II
.0033 0
Text
.00333 0

Node FX FZ
CAESAR II Text
1 2 10000 0 10000 0
CAESAR II
10000 -10000
Text
10000 -10000

Element
1
Nodes
1-2
CAESAR II Text
10000 10000
8-16
CAESAR II
Axial Force
2 3
1-3 2-3
10000 -14140
10000 -14200
8-17
Plane Truss
This job analyzes a Plane Truss, with various loads and is taken from Integrated Matrix Analysis of Structures, Example 6.2 by Mario Paz and William Leigh.

Node DX DZ RY
CAESAR II Text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 .0095 .0191 .0221 0 .0304 -.0044 -.0141 0 .00953 .0191 .0221 0 .0304 -.00445 -.0141
CAESAR II Text
0 0 -.1522 0 0 -.0737 -.1074 -.0349 0 0 -.1522 0 0 -.0737 -.1074 -.0349
CAESAR II Text
-.0024 .0174 -.0014 -.0170 .0053 .0082 -.0052 -.0115 -.0024 .0174 -.0014 -.0169 .0053 .0082 -.0052 -.0115
8-18

Node FX FZ
CAESAR II Text
1 2 4 5 -1071 0 0 6071 -1071 0 0 6071
CAESAR II Text
-4076 -11525 -12453 -1946 -4076 -11525 -12453 -1946

Element Nodes
1 4 7 8 9 14 1-2 4-5 7-8 5-8 2-6 3-8
CAESAR II Text
1986 -4611 -2008 -2433 -11523 9247 1990 -4610 -2010 -2430 -11520 9250
CH AP TER
Chapter 9 User Quality Assurance Procedures In This Chapter

Installing the QA Series ........................................................ 9-2 Preparing to Perform the QA ................................................ 9-3 Performing the QA ................................................................ 9-4 Configuration Settings Table ................................................ 9-7
This chapter describes the contents of the accompanying CD, and how the QA procedures can be performed by a user. The formal QA procedure performed by Intergraph CAS is described in Chapter 3 of this manual. The CD contains several directories as described in the following table (as described earlier in Chapter 3).
Directory Contents
Executable
Contains the program QATEST.EXE and execution instructions. This program is modified with each release of CAESAR II to update the title and address any data structure changes. Contains the NRC benchmark jobs: input and output. Contains a series of ASME benchmark jobs: input and output. Some of these jobs are static, some are dynamic. Contains other jobs compared to other public domain programs. Contains the Stoomwezen benchmark jobs. Contains several structural benchmark jobs.
NRC ASME General Stoomwezen Structural
9-2
Installing the QA Series

In order to perform the QA series, the job files from the QA Distribution CD must be installed on the hard drive. This can be accomplished by running the installation program found on the CD. Simply inserting the CD should start this installation program. If the CD Auto Run feature is disabled on the computer, simply browse to the CD and double-clickSETUP.EXE. SETUP.EXE is the standard Windows installation program most users are familiar with. This installation requires little input from the user, just the desired installation directory. It is suggested that the installation program be instructed to place the QA files in a clean Benchmark directory. The QA files will be placed in subdirectories beneath this Benchmark directory. In each directory (except Executable which contains the QATEST.EXE program) are the files necessary to analyze and compare the jobs. Each job consists of the input and resulting output as produced at Intergraph CAS.
Chapter 9 User Quality Assurance Procedures
9-3
Preparing to Perform the QA

The directory structure detailed above is referred to as the Benchmark Directory. DO NOT RUN CAESAR II FROM WITHIN THIS DIRECTORY. These files are the benchmarks, the baseline to which the local runs should be compared to. In order to successfully perform a local QA, the files in this directory structure need to be copied, as follows:
1 Copy the QATEST.EXE file from the \EXE directory into the CAESAR II program directory. It is also advisable to create a Shortcut to this EXE and place it on the desktop (to aid in invoking the QATEST utility). 2 Copy the \ASME, the \General, the \NRC, the \Stoomwzn, and the \Struct directories to a working folder. (This is necessary because to make a comparison you need two instances of each job. One instance is the benchmark or baseline, the other is the job just run in this working folder.)
To summarize, you need two copies of the QA jobs on your machine. One copy exists in the Benchmark directory (structure) and the other in the Test directory (structure).
9-4
Performing the QA
QA series should begin by analyzing each job in the Test directory (structure). Note, it is extremely important that the title page of each job be reviewed to see if changes are necessary to the configuration file (see the last page of this chapter for a summary table). Failure to use the proper program configuration will generate mismatch errors in the final comparison. Users should also note that some jobs are static and some are dynamic. It is suggested that the jobs be run and compared one at a time, until confidence in the procedure has been attained. Once the necessary files are available in the Test directory (structure), the CAESAR II program can be used to perform the analysis. (Performing the analysis in the Test directory (structure) preserves the input and output as distributed by Intergraph CAS. This allows further analysis and output comparisons. Analyzing the jobs in the original Benchmark directory (structure) will overwrite the output provided by Intergraph CAS.) Once an analysis has been completed, the QATEST.EXE program can be invoked to compare the new output to that provided by Intergraph CAS. QATEST.EXE can be invoked from Windows Explorer, or from a desktop shortcut. The QATEST.EXE dialog is shown in the figure below.
QATEST Pr ogr am Dialog Box
9-5
The top half of the dialog is available for the user to specify the job data for comparison. The bottom half of the dialog presents a summary of what was compared and the result. If the comparison between the new output and the Intergraph CAS supplied output matches, a check is placed in the appropriate box. If the comparison does not match, a gray check is placed in the appropriate box. Note, you should not attempt to manually check these boxes, the program will do this for you! The first edit box of this dialog, To process individual jobs, enters the directory containing the bench job(s):, is used to define where the Intergraph CAS supplied Benchmark files is. The entry here should contain the full path to the Benchmark directory (structure). The second edit box of this dialog, For batch processing is intended to allow multiple jobs to be compared in a batch mode. This option is not applicable here. The third edit box of this dialog, Enter the test job name to verify:, is used to specify the name of the job just analyzed, which is to be compared to Intergraph CAS generated results. You should type in the desired job name here. The fourth edit box of this dialog, Signature file name: is used to specify a text file which contains the machine id and operating system id for the comparison reports. This is a simple text file which contains only two lines of text, as illustrated below. Dual Pentium 700 (DELL) Windows 2000 SrvcPk 1 This is just an example, you should setup your own Signature file. For proper usage, the Signature file needs to reside in the same directory as the Test job. For efficiency, create the Signature file, test it once, and then copy it to all of the directories in the Test structure. While the use of a Signature file is optional, the use of this file saves time if the QA Reports are to be printed and archived. The Send reports to a file check box, causes the program to create output reports for each job compared. The output reports will be named <jobname>.QA, and are text files. These files can be printed and saved for future reference. By default, this box is checked at startup. The Report all Mismatches check box, causes the program to generate an entry for every mismatch detected. By default, this box is not checked, and the program only reports mismatches greater than the previous mismatch. All mismatches are always counted and reported in the report, regardless of how this box is checked. The Wait between jobs check box is intended for use in batch mode processing. This option is not applicable here. Once the input in the top half of the dialog has been defined, click OK to invoke the comparison routine. The program then compares the data in the two output files and reports any mismatches. For each category of results, the comparison status is displayed on the screen and possibly reported to the QA file. A sample comparison is shown in the figure below.
9-6
After comparing a job, the user can change the job name in the upper right edit box to continue comparing jobs. The View QA File button can be used to view the generated report file. The table at the end of this chapter lists all of the jobs (installed from the CD) and their appropriate configuration settings. The asterisk in this table indicates standard 3.23 configuration settings. Configuration changes in the table are modifications from the 3.23 settings. By using the system menu (available by clicking the QATEST icon in the upper left corner), users can set all configuration directives to 3.23, 3.24, or the latest version.
Note: Failure to properly adjust the configuration settings will cause numerous mismatches when QATEST is run.
A number of configuration file default values have been revised between the 3.23 and 3.24 releases in order to improve calculation results or program performance. These changes are listed in the table below.
Changed from 3.23 to 3.24
BEND_LENGTH_ATTACHMENT= 5.0 BEND_AXIAL_SHAPE = FRICT_STIFF = FRICT_NORM_FORCE_VAR = . FRICT_ANGLE_VAR = VALVE_&_FLANGE = NO 50000 25 . 30 GENERIC
1.0 YES 1.0E6 15 15 CADWORX
9-7
Configuration Settings Table

General
Configuration Settings Differing From The Default
Tees Pressure Meet Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Stiffening B169 adl2 b315a rccm2 tb4b tb5b kpip1 ansys1 trflx1 320571 dynhgr ubend ap1 pske4 z1 General General General General General General General General General General General General General General Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Both Static Static Static Static Static 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults Bend Axial Add Add Bend Alpha All Shape Torsion F/A Length Tolerance Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp
ON ON ON ON ON
No Default
ON ON ON
ON
YES NO
ON YES ON YES 0.50 0.5
NRC
Tees Pressure Meet Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Stiffening B169 nureg1 nureg2 nureg4 nureg5 nureg6 nureg7 nureg8 nureg9 nurg10 nurg11 NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC NRC Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults Bend Axial Add Add Bend Alpha All Shape Torsion F/A Length Tolerance Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON 0.05 1.00
ON ON
0.05
ASME
Tees Pressure Meet Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Stiffening B169 asme1 asme6 nrg1 nrg3 nrg5 nrg2 nrg4 ASME ASME ASME ASME ASME ASME ASME Dynamic Static Static Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Static 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults Bend Axial Add Add Bend Alpha All Shape Torsion F/A Length Tolerance Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp
ON ON 2.5
9-8
Stoomwezen
Tees Pressure Meet Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Stiffening B169 stm08d stm08t stom01 stom02 stm04 stm05a stm06d stm06t stm07d stm07t Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static Stoomwzn Static 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 5.10 Defaults 5.10 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults Bend Axial Add Add Bend Alpha All Shape Torsion F/A Length Tolerance Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp
ON ON
ON ON
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05
ON ON ON ON
120 120
Structural
Tees Pressure Meet Pass_Fail Filename Directory RunType System Menu PD_4t Stiffening B169 AN50-2 BMCOLS PLNFRM TRUSS SSLL PAZ1-9 PAZ3-1 PAZ3-4 PAZ5-2 PAZ6-1 PAZ6-2 Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Struct Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults 3.23 Defaults Bend Axial Add Add Bend Alpha All Shape Torsion F/A Length Tolerance Corroded MaxBend B313_SIF Decomp 1.00E+20
1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20 1.00E+20
CH AP TER
1 0
Chapter 10 Appendix A In This Chapter

CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form............... 10-2
10-2
Appendix A
CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form

Please provide the information requested on these sheets to aid us in finalizing Version x.xx. Name: Company: Operating System: Please return this form to Intergraph CAS by <date>.
Evaluation Forum Purpose:

The purpose of this form is to acquire your feedback on this new version, in a uniform documented manner. The topics and questions have been phrased to avoid yes/no answers, and instead solicit your reaction and feelings about the new software. Beta evaluation forms are saved with the QA for a particular release, so we do appreciate your time in completing these forms. While this form is very important, we want your on-going feedback regarding this new release. Please contact us as necessary, either via the website Discussion Forum, email, fax, or phone. We need to know if you encounter any difficulties or have any suggestions as early as possible.
General Items:
Describe any problems you experienced with the CAESAR II Installation process. 1-1) Did the auto-run start on your machine? Did you review the other options on the CD menu?
1-2)
With regards to the actual installation of CAESAR II x.xx, did you have any difficulty? Were the dialog messages clear? Was the installation successful?
1-3)
Once the installation was completed, could you start the software from the Windows Start Menu? From the desktop shortcut? Did the Main Menu, splash screen, and Tool Tip screen appear correctly?
1-4)
Do you have other versions on CAESAR II installed on this machine? If so, did you experience any conflicts?
Chapter 10 Appendix A
10-3
1-5)
How would you describe the usefulness and content of the tip of the day? _____ I read them most of the time _____ I sometimes read them _____ I rarely read them _____ I turn them off
1-6)
Did you uninstall the beta version using the routine provided? If so, why and did you encounter any problems?
1-7)
Was this beta version installed on a network drive or on a local hard drive? What type of ESL is involved (local USB, local white, or network red)? What type of network?
1-8)
Are you using Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista? _____ Windows 2000 _____ Windows Vista Business _____ Windows XP Professional _____ Windows Vista Ultimate
_____ Windows Vista (other ___________________________________) 1-9) Was context sensitive help useful (and available everywhere)?
1-10)
Of the new capabilities incorporated into this release, which one is most important to you and why?
Did you use the "beta testers" section of the Intergraph CAS website?
If not, why not?
If so, what did you find most useful?
10-4
Appendix A
Piping Input:
2-1) Did you encounter any problems in building piping models?
2-2)
Did you notice any speed improvements in Version x.xx over y.yy? If so, where?
2-3)
Did you use the LIST facility to review the various categories of data?
2-4)
Did you use the LIST facility to duplicate or rotate the model? (Please check only one.) _____ Very Often _____ Sometimes _____ Occasionally _____ Never
2-5)
Did you find the "tool tips" for the expected units useful?
2-6)
Did you use the valve/flange and expansion joint selection tables?
2-7) Did you collapse the input spreadsheet to increase the graphics area? If so, did you find this capability useful?
2-8)
What graphics features do you use most?
2-9)
Did you customize the arrangement of the input interface? Did you use the cutting planes?
2-10)
Did you use the "undo / redo" capabilities? If so, did you encounter any problems?
2-11)
Did you use the "alpha node name" capabilities? If so, did you encounter any problems?
2-12)
Did you find the new navigation tools helpful?
10-5
2-13) Did you use the configuration and/or the Load Case editor from within the piping input processor? If so did you find this ability useful?
2-14) Did you import any drawing (DWG) files into the input to see how the piping system overlays the remainder of the plant?
2-15)
How often do you graphically construct models, or graphically change element characteristics?
2-16)
What is your configuration set to with regards to the default piping display? _____ center line mode _____ rendered mode _____ double line (volume mode)
2-17) Did you find the ability to tear off parts of the spreadsheet useful for graphical manipulation and/or interrogation of the model?
Load Case Setup:

3-1) How useful did you find the drag & drop editing capability?
3-2)
How often do you modify the recommended load cases?
3-3)
Did you do any fatigue analysis?
3-4)
Did you use the "wind load" or "wave/current load" vectors?
3-5)
Did you use the wave graphics section?
3-6)
Did you use the friction multiplier ability?
3-7) What are your thoughts on the Second Load Case tab, used to describe the static load case, the combination methods and the output expected?
10-6
Appendix A
3-8)
What are your thoughts on the Hanger Options found on the Load Case Options tab?
3-9)
Did you have the need to alter the Modulus Of Elasticity setting in the Load Case options?
Static Analysis Process:

4-1) Did you encounter any problems during Static Analysis?
4-2)
Do you find the in-core solution dialog useful in monitoring the solution process?
4-3)
Did you use the 3D output graphics element viewer?
4-4)
Did you have any problems printing the output reports? If so, describe your printer/network setup.
4-5)
Did you print output reports to disk (in ASCII format)?
4-6)
Did you send the static output to MS Word?
4-7)
Did you create any customized output reports? If so, was the use of this ability straight forward?
Structural Input:
5-1) Have you ever used the Structural Modeler? If not, why not?
5-2)
Did you use the structural modeler from within the Piping Input?
5-3)
Which structural databases do you use most often?
10-7
5-4)
Did you analyze a structural only job?
Dynamic Input:
6-1) How did you find the organization of the dynamic input topics? (Did you notice necessary topics are shown based on analysis type?)
6-2)
Describe the presentation of the input dialogs.
6-3)
What type of Dynamic Analysis did you perform?
6-4)
Comment on the wizard for building Seismic Spectra.
6-5)
Do you have any suggestions regarding the specification of Dynamic Input?
6-6)
Do you find the DLF Plotting useful?
Dynamic Analysis and Review:

7-1) Did you encounter any problems reviewing the Dynamic Output? Did you have any problems printing?
7-2)
Did you use the dynamics animation? If so, how did you find the operation and speed of this facility?
Interfacing:
8-1) Did you utilize any of the CAD interfaces? If so, which one(s)? Did the operation produce the expected results? Intergraph Isomet PCF
Autocad Cadpipe CADWorx ComputerVision
10-8
Appendix A
8-2)
Did you generate or read any CAESAR II neutral files? CAESAR II Data Matrix Complete Neutral File
8-3)
Did you utilize either of the hydraulic interfaces? If so, which one(s)?
LIQT AFT PIPENET Did you use the (ODBC) database export facilities? If so, did you use MS Access or MS Excel? Please describe what you used the database for.
Auxiliary Analysis:
9-1) Which of the following auxiliary analysis processes did you use: ___WRC-107 ___API-617 ___API-661 ___EJMA 9-2) ___NEMA SM23 ___HEI Standard ___B31G ___WRC-297 ___API-610 ___API-560 ___ASME Flanges ___SIF Review ___AISC
Please comment on any items you checked in 9-1 above.
Miscellaneous:
10-1) How did you find the operation of the Material Database Editor?
10-2)
Do you use accounting? If so, what type of setup did you use?
10-3)
How often did you use the options on the Diagnostic menu?
10-9
Wrap-Up:
11-1) In general how did you find the presentation and operation of Version x.xx?
11-2)
Did you use the menus or tool bars most often and why?
11-3)
What did you like best about Version x.xx?
11-4)
What did you like the least about Version x.xx?
11-5)
Did you review the on-line documentation? Did you find this useful?
11-6) Did you review or use the videos? Do you feel they should ship as a standard part of the CAESAR II package?
11-7)
Do you have any general comments or suggestions toward improving the software or the beta test phase?
Technical Support:
12-1) Have you contacted Intergraph CAS for Technical Support? If so, how would you describe the support experience?
12-2)
Are your support instances typically via telephone, fax, or email?
12-3)
Do you have any suggestions that could improve the "support experience" for other users?
12-4)
Are your support instances more related to software issues or technical issues? If software issues, what could be improved with the software or documentation to reduce these issues?
10-10
Appendix A
12-5)
Do you use the Intergraph CAS website? If so, what for? ___Discussion Forums ___Technical Articles ___Newsletter Review ___Software Downloads ___Seminar Information ___Sales/Product Information
12-6)
If you do use the Intergraph CAS website rank these areas in the order of importance to you. ___Discussion Forums ___Technical Articles ___Newsletter Review ___Software Downloads ___Seminar Information ___Sales/Product Information
12-7)
If you don't use the Intergraph CAS website, why not?
12-8)
If you do use the Intergraph CAS website, about how often do you visit (times per week/month)?

C2 V&V - Manual - V530

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

C2 V&V - Manual - V530

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CAESAR II 2011 Verification and Validation Manual

Copyright 1985-2010 Intergraph CAS, All Rights Reserved.

Printed on 4 January, 2011

ASME Benchmarks General Benchmarks

Test Case I ................................................................................................................................................ 7-2

User Quality Assurance Procedures

CAESAR II Version X.XX Beta Evaluation Form ................................................................................. 10-2

Chapter 2 Discussion of QA Standards

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Additional Manual Checks for Staff and Beta Users

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Installing the QA Files

Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Chapter 3 Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Corrective Action Standard

Intergraph CAS Quality Assurance Procedures

Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks In This Chapter

NRC General Benchmarks

CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG1

1) Displacements (in) at Node 5.

2) Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb) at Node 1.

EPIPE Analytic Pipdyn CAESAR II

-1711 -1750 -1737.2 -1700

-1666.9 -1710.0 -1686.2 -1658

-628.2 -640.0 -636.7 -625.

-4573 -4670 -4635 -4548

1194.66 1200.00 1207.9 1187.

10847.1 11090.0 11025.3 10777.0

3) Longitudinal Stresses (psi) at Node 1.

Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks

CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG2

Natural Frequencies (hz)

28.539 55.848 141.958 162.994

28.53 55.77 141.7 162.8

SRSS of the Modal Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II

Longitudinal Stress Components ( Bending + Axial ) (psi)

193.8 69.9 40.9 79.9 124.8

Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks

CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG3

Natural Frequencies (hz)

111.5 115.9 137.6 218.0 404.2

111.3 115.8 137.2 215.9 404.55

Response Spectrum Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

CAESAR II ANSYS CAESAR II ANSYS

Longitudinal Stresses ( Bending + Longitudinal ) (psi)

187 19.8 119.0 187.0

188.19 19 120.2 188.19

Chapter 4 NRC Benchmarks

CAESAR II Benchmark Problem NRG4

Nodal Translations (in) and Rotations (deg)

Element Forces (lb) and Moments (ft-lb)

CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II EPIPE CAESAR II

-9947. -10066. -39414. -39962. -39414. -39962. -9947. -10066. -7026.

40036. 39962. 12178 10066. 12178 10066. 40036. 39962. 40650.

195504. 197877. 211119. 215146. 392744. 393410. 68457. 68461. 441272.

-119564. -120304. -3535. -3955. -84105. -84494. -122801. -125080. -104315.